What laws regulate AI hiring tools in 2026?

The federal baseline

Existing civil-rights law already covers AI-driven hiring decisions. Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibit discriminatory outcomes regardless of whether a human or an algorithm produced them, and disparate-impact liability attaches to neutral-seeming tools that disproportionately screen out protected groups.

The live question is who shares that liability. In Mobley v. Workday, a federal court held that a vendor whose AI performs screening functions can be treated as the employer's agent under federal anti-discrimination statutes, and the EEOC filed an amicus brief supporting that theory. The collective action survived further motions to dismiss in June 2026. More on what the case alleges is in our answer on AI screening bias.

State and city rules

New York City: Local Law 144. Employers using an automated employment decision tool for NYC candidates must have an independent bias audit completed within the past year, publish a summary of the results, and notify candidates at least 10 business days before using the tool. The NYC Department of Consumer and Worker Protection enforces it, with civil penalties per violation per day.

Illinois: two laws. The Artificial Intelligence Video Interview Act requires notice, explanation, and consent before AI analyzes a recorded video interview, plus deletion within 30 days of a candidate's request. Since January 1, 2026, Public Act 103-0804 amends the Illinois Human Rights Act to make it a civil rights violation to use AI that discriminates in employment decisions, to use zip codes as a proxy for protected classes, or to fail to notify employees that AI is being used.

Colorado: repealed and replaced. The Colorado AI Act of 2024 (SB 24-205) never took effect. After a federal court stayed enforcement, the legislature repealed it and Governor Polis signed SB 26-189, the Automated Decision-Making Technology Act, on May 14, 2026. The replacement takes effect January 1, 2027 and centers on consumer notice, records retention, and a right to human review after an adverse decision, rather than the original's algorithmic-discrimination duties.

More states have bills in motion, so multi-state employers should assume the patchwork keeps growing.

What compliance looks like in practice

The rules differ in detail but converge on three obligations: tell candidates how they're being evaluated, keep a human in the decision, and keep records that survive an audit.

Talent Pronto's design maps to that convergence. Every candidate for a role gets the same questions scored against the same employer-defined rubric, no candidate is auto-rejected by the system, and every interview produces a complete audit trail: questions, answers, per-criterion scores, written reasoning, and access logs. Because the screen is a text conversation, the video-analysis provisions of laws like Illinois' AIVIA are not triggered. Details are on the security, compliance, and fair hiring page.

Common follow-up questions

If our vendor's tool is biased, are we off the hook?

No. Employers remain liable for discriminatory outcomes in their own hiring, and the Mobley rulings suggest vendors may share liability rather than absorb it. Vendor selection is part of compliance, and so are the records you keep.

Does Local Law 144 apply if we're not based in NYC?

It applies based on where candidates are, not where the employer sits. If you hire for NYC roles or screen NYC residents with an automated tool, the audit and notice requirements are in scope.

What records should we be able to produce?

For any screened candidate: what the tool evaluated, the criteria it applied, the score and the reasoning behind it, and who reviewed the result before a decision. If your current tool can't produce that record, that gap is the compliance risk.