NYC Local Law 144 and the EU AI Act: one hiring-compliance program
For US employers under both regimes, verified at source. About 5 minutes.
If you hire in New York City and anywhere the EU AI Act reaches, you are under two AI-in-hiring regimes at once. One is live and being enforced today; the other is broader and binds from 2 August 2026, with a provisional move to 2027 not yet final. Neither covers the other. The efficient move is to build one evidence trail that feeds both, not two binders that never speak.
The one that is live now: NYC Local Law 144
New York City's Local Law 144 is narrow, specific, and already enforced. Since enforcement began on 5 July 2023, an employer or employment agency may not use an automated employment decision tool on candidates or employees in NYC unless three things are true: the tool has had a bias audit by an independent auditor within the past year, a summary of that audit is posted publicly, and the people being evaluated were notified at least ten business days in advance (NYC DCWP, Local Law 144). Penalties run from 500 to 1,500 dollars per violation, and each day a non-compliant tool is used can count separately. This is not a future project. It applies the moment you use a covered tool on a New York candidate.
The one arriving later: the EU AI Act
The EU AI Act is broader and heavier. It places AI used in recruitment and selection in its high-risk tier (Annex III, point 4 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689), and the duty reaches US employers whose use of an AI hiring system touches people in the EU (read it on EUR-Lex). The employer is the deployer, and Article 26 attaches a full program: real human oversight, record-keeping, monitoring the tool in use, and candidate transparency where required (AI Act, Article 26). Those high-risk obligations apply from 2 August 2026 under the Act as published; a simplification package the EU provisionally agreed would move them to 2 December 2027, but it is not yet final in the Official Journal, so 2 August 2026 is the date that binds until it is. The fine ceiling is far higher, up to 15 million euro or 3 percent of worldwide annual turnover (AI Act, Article 99). Broader scope, heavier machinery, later clock.
Why one does not cover the other
The costly assumption is that a New York bias audit satisfies the EU, or that an EU program covers New York. It does not work either way. A bias audit is one slice of fairness testing; it is not the oversight, documentation, and monitoring the AI Act demands. And an AI Act program does not automatically produce the public audit summary or the ten-day candidate notice that New York requires today. They overlap in spirit and diverge in exactly the details that get you fined.
| NYC Local Law 144 | EU AI Act | |
|---|---|---|
| Status | Live and enforced since 5 July 2023. | High-risk duties bind from 2 August 2026; a move to 2 December 2027 is provisional, not yet final. |
| Scope | Automated employment decision tools used on NYC candidates and employees. | AI used to recruit or select, where it touches people in the EU. |
| Core duties | Annual independent bias audit, public summary, ten-business-day candidate notice. | Human oversight, logging, monitoring, vendor documentation, candidate transparency. |
| Penalty | 500 to 1,500 dollars per violation, potentially per day. | Up to 15 million euro or 3 percent of worldwide annual turnover. |
What to do with this: one spine, two heads
- Handle New York now. If you use a hiring tool on NYC candidates, get the independent bias audit, post the summary, and send the ten-business-day notice. Live law, daily penalties.
- Build the EU deployer program in parallel. Inventory your tools, assign real oversight, monitor, and keep the evidence. On the 2027 clock, but cheaper to start now than to scramble later.
- Share the evidence between them. The bias audit feeds your AI Act risk story; the candidate notices feed both regimes' transparency expectations. Keep one trail that serves both.
- Track each calendar separately. New York's audit must stay within the last year and recurs; the EU obligations arrive on their own date. Same tools, two timelines.
Regulators on both continents have decided that AI judging people in hiring needs auditing and disclosure. The specifics differ; the direction does not. Build for the direction, and the specifics become a checklist instead of a fire drill.
Start by sizing it for your own stack
Before either program, find out which of your tools are even in scope and what they trigger. That is free and takes a couple of minutes.
Take the free, two-minute self-assessment. Five questions tell you whether your hiring tool is likely high-risk under the EU AI Act and what the first step is. No email needed to see your result.
Take the free 2-minute checkWant the full checklist and the editable files your team fills in? See the Toolkit (US$ 99, one-time).
Going deeper on the two-regime overlap? Read the full edition: New York's Local Law 144 vs the EU AI Act.
This is educational material and a starting point, not legal advice. It touches two distinct legal regimes, each with its own rules and changes over time, and the EU high-risk timeline rests on an agreement not yet final in the Official Journal. For how New York's Local Law 144 and the EU AI Act apply to your specific tools and locations, consult a qualified lawyer in each jurisdiction. Signato is not a law firm and does not certify compliance.
Every claim here is traced to the primary regulation and checked by a person before it goes out. We tell you what is settled, what is still open, and what to do next. How we work.