NYC Local Law 144 vs. California AB 331

Compare the two most significant US AI hiring regulations: NYC's active Local Law 144 and California's broader AB 331 framework.

Side-by-Side Comparison

AspectNYC Local Law 144California AB 331
JurisdictionNew York CityCalifornia (statewide)
Effective DateJuly 5, 20232025 (expected)
ScopeAutomated Employment Decision Tools (AEDTs) used for hiring or promotion in NYCBroader: automated-decision systems in employment, not just AEDTs
Penalties$500 first violation, $500-$1,500 subsequent violations per useTBD — expected to include civil penalties and private right of action
Audit RequirementAnnual independent bias audit with public postingImpact assessments required, not just bias audits
Key ProvisionRequires statistical analysis of selection rates by race/ethnicity and sexRequires impact assessments, notice to candidates, and opt-out mechanisms

Key Differences

  • Scope: LL144 covers AEDTs narrowly; AB 331 covers broader automated-decision systems
  • Assessment type: LL144 requires bias audit; AB 331 requires comprehensive impact assessment
  • Candidate rights: AB 331 includes opt-out rights; LL144 requires notice only
  • Penalties: LL144 has defined fines; AB 331 penalties are still being finalized
  • Geography: LL144 applies to NYC employers; AB 331 covers all California employers

Compliance Strategy

  1. 1Start with LL144 compliance as the baseline — it is already enforced
  2. 2Extend your audit to include impact assessment elements required by AB 331
  3. 3Implement candidate notice and opt-out mechanisms proactively
  4. 4Use OnHirely to run both LL144 and AB 331 analyses from the same dataset

Related Pages

Comply With Multiple Regulations at Once

OnHirely supports multi-regulation analysis. Run a single audit and get compliance reports for NYC LL144, EU AI Act, and more.

Start Free Audit