Regulatory scoping for city-level AI and hiring rules
A growing layer of regulation sits below the state level: cities are imposing their own rules on automated employment decision tools and surveillance technology. NYC Local Law 144 is the furthest along, requiring a bias audit and candidate notice for automated employment decision tools, and other cities are advancing comparable measures.
Regulations Magist tracks for this vertical
Coverage of these newer regimes is published as draft and reviewed on a rolling basis.
Questions that determine your footprint
Do you use an automated employment decision tool in NYC?
NYC Local Law 144 can require an independent bias audit, publication of the audit summary, and candidate notice before an automated employment decision tool is used for hiring or promotion in the city.
Do you hire in San Francisco or Portland?
Several cities are advancing automated-decision and surveillance-technology measures, so a tool scoped only to state law may face additional city-level duties worth tracking.
Can you produce a bias-audit trail?
City-level rules increasingly turn on an auditable record of bias testing and candidate disclosure, which is typically a process the vendor and the employer build together.
See exactly which of 155+ regulations apply to your city-level ai & hiring rules product.
Magist is an instrument, not a consultancy. It does not sell compliance services or take payment from vendors for placement; the analysis is the same for everyone.
Magist provides legal information, not legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney.