US State AI Hiring Laws Comparison
Compare AI hiring regulations across US states: New York, California, Illinois, Maryland, and Colorado.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Aspect | NYC Local Law 144 | California AB 331 | Illinois AIVRA | Maryland HB 1202 | Colorado AI Act |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | New York City | California | Illinois | Maryland | Colorado |
| Effective Date | July 5, 2023 | 2025 (expected) | January 1, 2020 | October 1, 2020 | February 1, 2026 |
| Scope | AEDTs in hiring/promotion | Automated-decision systems in employment | AI analysis of video interviews | Facial recognition in hiring | High-risk AI systems including employment |
| Penalties | $500-$1,500 per violation | TBD | Civil penalties up to $1,000/violation | Civil penalties | $20,000 per violation under CCPA |
| Audit Requirement | Annual independent bias audit | Impact assessments | Consent and disclosure requirements | Consent requirement | Impact assessments and risk management |
| Key Provision | Disparate impact analysis and public posting | Impact assessment, notice, and opt-out | Candidate consent required for AI video analysis | Prohibits facial recognition without written consent | Comprehensive AI governance for high-risk systems |
Key Differences
- NYC LL144 is the most specific and actively enforced for hiring bias audits
- Illinois and Maryland focus on specific technologies (video AI, facial recognition)
- California and Colorado take broader approaches covering all automated decision systems
- Penalty severity ranges from $500 (NYC) to $20,000+ (Colorado)
- Only NYC currently requires public posting of audit results
Compliance Strategy
- 1Map which jurisdictions you hire in and which laws apply
- 2Start with LL144 compliance as the most actionable baseline
- 3Build consent and disclosure processes for Illinois and Maryland requirements
- 4Prepare impact assessment capabilities for California and Colorado frameworks
- 5Use OnHirely to maintain compliance across all applicable jurisdictions
Related Pages
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.
Read moreNYC Local Law 144 vs. EU AI Act
Compare the US's most active local AI hiring law with the EU's comprehensive AI regulation framework.
Read moreCalifornia AB 331 vs Illinois AI Video Interview Act
Compare California and Illinois approaches to regulating AI in employment — scope, requirements, and enforcement differences.
Read moreEU AI Act vs GDPR: Hiring Implications
How the EU AI Act and GDPR interact for AI-powered hiring tools — compliance requirements, data protection, and enforcement.
Read moreFederal vs State AI Hiring Regulation in the US
Compare federal EEOC guidelines with state-level AI hiring laws — which apply to your company and when.
Read moreColorado AI Act vs Connecticut AI Act
Side-by-side comparison of Colorado and Connecticut approaches to AI regulation in employment.
Read moreEEOC vs OFCCP: AI Hiring Compliance Requirements
Compare EEOC and OFCCP requirements for AI-powered hiring tools — which applies to your company and what you need to do.
Read more2024 vs 2025: What Changed in AI Hiring Regulation
Year-over-year comparison of AI hiring regulations — new laws, enforcement updates, and what to expect next.
Read moreComply 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