AI Hiring Regulations in 2026: What TA Teams Need to Know
Two frameworks now shape how AI hiring tools can be used: New York City's Local Law 144 and the EU AI Act. Neither bans AI hiring outright — both regulate how it has to be audited, disclosed, and overseen. Here's what each actually requires, who it applies to, and what to ask before deploying an AI hiring tool under either.
This is general informational content, not legal advice. Regulatory scope and enforcement guidance continue to evolve — confirm current requirements for your specific jurisdiction and use case with counsel before relying on this summary.
NYC Local Law 144
Local Law 144 regulates “automated employment decision tools” (AEDTs) used by employers to hire or promote for roles based in New York City. Three obligations sit at its core: an independent bias audit of the tool conducted within the past year, a public summary of that audit's results posted where candidates can find it, and advance notice to candidates — generally at least 10 business days ahead — that an AEDT is being used, with an option to request an alternative evaluation process in some circumstances.
The law's exact scope — which tools count as substantially assisting or replacing discretionary decision-making — has been interpreted somewhat narrowly since enactment, and enforcement guidance has continued to evolve. Employers using AI-assisted screening or interviewing for NYC roles should confirm with counsel whether a specific tool and use case falls inside the definition, rather than assuming either way based on general reporting.
The EU AI Act
The EU AI Act is a broader, risk-tiered framework covering AI systems across many domains, not just hiring. It specifically classifies AI systems used for recruitment or selection — including targeted job-ad placement, screening or filtering applications, and evaluating candidates — as “high-risk” under Annex III. That classification triggers a set of obligations before and during deployment: a risk-management system, data-governance practices for training and evaluation data, technical documentation, human oversight of the system's decisions, transparency to the people it affects, and a conformity assessment before the system goes live in scope.
Unlike Local Law 144's city-specific scope, the AI Act's obligations apply based on where the system is deployed or where its output is used within the EU, which makes it relevant to a much wider set of employers than its geographic name suggests.
What both frameworks are actually asking for
Neither law bans AI hiring tools. Both are structured around the same underlying concern: can the tool's decisions be audited, and are the people affected by it told it's being used. That's a floor for transparency and oversight, not a ceiling on what AI can do in a hiring process. Tools built around consistent, visible criteria and a human decision-maker in the loop are structurally closer to what these frameworks expect than opaque, black-box scoring models — which is the same distinction covered in more depth in Is AI Hiring Fair?.
Questions to ask any AI hiring vendor
- Has an independent bias audit been conducted, and when — and can results or a summary be shared?
- How and when are candidates notified that AI is part of the evaluation process?
- What human oversight exists over the final decision — does the tool auto-reject anyone, or does it always surface output for a person to act on?
- What data governance and retention practices apply to candidate data, including interview recordings and transcripts?
Where JustInterview.ai stands
JIA's structured approach is built with these questions in mind: every candidate for a role gets the same questions and rubric, every AI interview produces a full transcript alongside the score, and the hiring decision itself stays with your team rather than an automated reject. Specific compliance status — including current independent bias audit status under Local Law 144 and conformity-assessment status under the EU AI Act — depends on jurisdiction and deployment, and should be confirmed directly as part of any vendor security or compliance review. See Security & Compliance for how we handle data protection more broadly, or contact us for current audit and compliance status.
Frequently asked questions
What is NYC Local Law 144?
NYC Local Law 144 regulates the use of "automated employment decision tools" (AEDTs) by employers hiring for roles based in New York City. It requires an independent bias audit of the tool within the prior year, public posting of a summary of that audit's results, and advance notice to candidates — generally at least 10 business days before the tool is used — that an AEDT is part of the process, along with the option to request an alternative evaluation in some cases.
Does Local Law 144 apply to every AI hiring tool?
It applies specifically to tools that substantially assist or replace discretionary decision-making in hiring or promotion for NYC-based roles — the exact scope has been debated and interpreted somewhat narrowly by NYC's Department of Consumer and Worker Protection since enactment. Employers using any AI-assisted screening or interviewing tool for NYC roles should confirm with counsel whether a specific tool and use case falls inside the law's definition, rather than assuming either way.
What is the EU AI Act, and how does it treat hiring tools?
The EU AI Act is the European Union's risk-based framework for regulating AI systems. It classifies AI systems used for recruitment or selection of candidates — including for placing targeted job ads, screening or filtering applications, and evaluating candidates — as "high-risk" under Annex III. High-risk classification brings obligations around risk management, data governance, technical documentation, human oversight, transparency to affected individuals, and conformity assessment before deployment.
What should a TA team ask an AI hiring vendor about compliance?
Whether an independent bias audit has been conducted and when, whether audit results or a compliance summary are available on request, how candidates are notified that AI is part of the process, what human oversight exists over final decisions, and how the vendor's data governance and retention practices work. A vendor that can't answer these clearly is a real gap to flag, not a minor detail to skip past.
Is JustInterview.ai compliant with NYC Local Law 144 and the EU AI Act?
JIA's approach is designed with these requirements in mind: every candidate for a role gets the same structured questions and rubric, every AI interview produces a full transcript, and the hiring decision itself stays with a human on your team rather than an automated reject. That said, specific compliance status — including current independent bias audit status for Local Law 144 and EU AI Act conformity assessment — depends on the deployment and jurisdiction. Contact us directly if compliance documentation is part of your vendor review.
Do these regulations mean AI hiring tools are being phased out?
No — both frameworks regulate how AI hiring tools are used, not whether they can be used at all. They're closer to a floor for transparency and auditability than a ban. Tools built around consistent criteria, visible records, and human-in-the-loop decisions are generally better positioned to meet these requirements than opaque, black-box scoring models — which is exactly the distinction most of this regulation is trying to draw.
Get started
See an AI hiring process built around transparency.
Start a $2.99 trial and run a real candidate through a fully structured AI interview — transcript included.