1001 Smart Cities
🇺🇸 New York City

Local Law 144: Bias Audits for Hiring Algorithms

🤖 AI-generated summary · ◆ 1 sourced claim · 🔎 Last verified

This overview was generated with AI from the public sources listed below and checked against them before publication. It has not had a complete human fact-check — treat it as a starting point and follow the sources.

1 sourced claim on this page, none individually verified yet — turn on “Sources in the text” to see each one.

How this atlas is made · What “last verified” means · What “source-checked” means · The full record behind this page

Every employer screening candidates by algorithm owes an annual bias audit. Researchers checked 391 of them in 2023 and found 18 published reports; enforcement produced two complaints in two years.

Outcome🔄 Ongoing
Evidence🔬 Peer-reviewed
what does this mean?The strongest source behind this entry is an independent peer-reviewed or academic study. It grades who did the looking — not how well the project went. All four grades →
Run byNew York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP)
Scale🏙️ City-wide

Part of 1001 Smart Cities — 1,167 documented projects · 🏙️ 17 more in New York City · 🤖 Artificial intelligence guide · 🏛️ Governance projects

Adopted in 2021, the law requires employers that use an automated tool to screen job candidates or promote staff to commission an annual independent bias audit, publish a summary of its selection and scoring rates by sex and race/ethnicity, and notify candidates ten business days beforehand. Enforcement began on 5 July 2023, six months after the law formally took effect. Researchers who checked 391 employers that autumn found 18 published audit reports. A December 2025 state comptroller audit called enforcement ineffective: two complaints in two years, and a city sweep of 32 employers that flagged one likely violation where state auditors found 17.

Live 📅 since 2021 🤖 Uses AI

📊 Impact

18 of 391 employers checked had posted a bias audit report and 13 a transparency notice (Wright et al., FAccT 2024; fieldwork October-November 2023)

🎓 Lesson

Requiring an audit is not the same as enforcing one. When employers decide for themselves whether their tool is in scope, choose and pay their own auditor, and the regulator waits for complaints, almost no audits appear.

🏛️ GovernanceArtificial intelligenceDigital government

Sources

↗ NYC Department of Consumer and Worker Protection — Automated Employment Decision ToolsThe regulator's own page: enforcement begins 5 July 2023; the tool must have had a bias audit within one year of use, information about the audit must be publicly available and a summary of results posted, and notice must be given 10 business days before an AEDT is used.
↗ NYC Rules — Automated Employment Decision Tools (DCWP rulemaking)The implementing rule: defines a covered tool as machine learning, statistical modelling, data analytics or artificial intelligence whose output is used to substantially assist or replace discretionary decision making, and sets out selection rate, scoring rate and impact ratio calculated by sex category, race/ethnicity category and intersectional categories.
↗ Wright et al., Null Compliance: NYC Local Law 144 and the Challenges of Algorithm Accountability (ACM FAccT 2024)Published 3 June 2024 archived copyPeer-reviewed source for the compliance figure: 155 student investigators recorded 391 employers between 24 October and 9 November 2023; 18 posted audit reports and 13 posted transparency notices. Also the source for the 'null compliance' problem, employers holding near-total discretion over whether their system is in scope. Published at FAccT '24, DOI 10.1145/3630106.3658998.
↗ Groves, Metcalf, Kennedy, Vecchione and Strait, Auditing Work: Exploring the New York City algorithmic bias audit regime (ACM FAccT 2024)Published 12 February 2024The methodological counterweight, from interviews with auditors and practitioners: the law fails to define AEDTs and independent auditors clearly, rests on a flawed transparency-driven theory of change, and industry lobbying narrowed the definition of a covered tool. Also the source characterising LL 144 as the first algorithm auditing system for commercial machine-learning systems.
↗ Office of the New York State Comptroller — Enforcement of Local Law 144, Automated Employment Decision Tools (2 December 2025)Independent state audit covering July 2023 to June 2025: DCWP's system for enforcing the law is ineffective, only two AEDT-related complaints were received in the whole period, and the complaint intake process does not reliably route complaints to DCWP.
Show 1 more sourcesShow fewer
↗ New York State Comptroller press release on the DCWP audit (December 2025)Published 2 December 2025Source for the specific enforcement numbers: DCWP reviewed 32 employers' and vendors' websites and identified one instance of likely non-compliance, while state auditors reviewing the same companies found 17; of 12 test calls to 311 only three reached DCWP.

📅 How old is the evidence?

Two clocks, kept apart: when this entry’s sources were published, and what has happened to its record in the atlas. Documented span: since 2021. 4 of 6 sources carry a publication date, from 12 February 2024 to 2 December 2025.

When the sources were published

  1. arXiv (preprint repository) · researchGroves, Metcalf, Kennedy, Vecchione and Strait, Auditing Work: Exploring the New York City algorithmic bias audit regime (ACM FAccT 2024)
  2. arXiv (preprint repository) · researchWright et al., Null Compliance: NYC Local Law 144 and the Challenges of Algorithm Accountability (ACM FAccT 2024)
  3. Office of the New York State Comptroller · oversight bodyOffice of the New York State Comptroller — Enforcement of Local Law 144, Automated Employment Decision Tools (2 December 2025)
  4. Office of the New York State Comptroller · oversight bodyNew York State Comptroller press release on the DCWP audit (December 2025)

Every source, with links ↑

What happened to this record

  1. Sources last read
  2. Entered the record

Every revision, permanent →

Show your work What this page rests on and what it can’t tell you · all 1 claims with their sources · the forensic record

Evidence Passport · public beta 1 addressable claim, 6 source dossiers, one permanent baseline. The passport is unreviewed — an AI-assisted structural migration, not a human or expert endorsement. Every revision keeps a permanent copy under revision history.

Inspect the claims, one by one — verbatim text, sources and caveats for all 1

The text below is copied verbatim from the published record. Each claim names the source dossiers that carry it; caveats stay attached to the claim they qualify.

Claim 1 clm-4f0d15881428c77f quantitative
18 of 391 employers checked had posted a bias audit report and 13 a transparency notice
Published field
impact · verbatim
Mapping
mapped · no interpretation or interpolation added by this passport
What the mapping says
The entry states researchers who checked 391 employers in autumn 2023 found 18 published audit reports.
Caveat
No claim-specific caveat recorded

Sources carrying this claim

  1. Wright et al., Null Compliance: NYC Local Law 144 and the Challenges of Algorithm Accountability (ACM FAccT 2024)
Forensic record — source dossiers, gaps, hashes and the exact revision this page renders

This layer records what is known about each source, what is still missing, and the exact snapshot this page is rendering. A missing date, archive or hash stays visible as missing.

unreviewed Revision 2026-08-20-source-dates effective 2026-07-26 · created 2026-08-20

Awaiting operator and domain-expert review; publication of this revision implies neither.

sha256:387f09555b0bae96688a16fb7835d4b4d5d9f995ad789a3e38d348d3bf258dc1
Revision history → Permanent version link → Machine-readable record → Evidence Constitution →
1
of 1 claims mapped
6
source dossiers
4
publication dates recorded
1
archives linked
0
exact locators
0
content captures hashed

Governance facts carried by the record

Operator
New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP)
Actor types
city-government
Funding model
public
Funding description
Not recorded
Cost
Not recorded
Ownership
Not recorded
Decision rights
Not recorded
Exit conditions
Not recorded

6 source dossiers

NYC Department of Consumer and Worker Protection — Automated Employment Decision Tools nyc.gov · background

Open original source ↗

Stable source ID
src-3786d4e66e97f74d
Publisher
Name not classified · nyc.gov
Type / language
web-page · language not classified
Published
Not recorded
Updated
Not recorded
Source last checked
No source-level check date
Record last verified
2026-07-26
Dossier created
2026-08-20
Retrieved copy
No local capture recorded
Archive
No archived copy linked
Content hash
No captured content hash
Locator
Open the recorded source note

The regulator's own page: enforcement begins 5 July 2023; the tool must have had a bias audit within one year of use, information about the audit must be publicly available and a summary of results posted, and notice must be given 10 business days before an AEDT is used.

Descriptive only — not page/paragraph exact
Claims linked
Background source; no baseline claim points here
NYC Rules — Automated Employment Decision Tools (DCWP rulemaking) rules.cityofnewyork.us · background

Open original source ↗

Stable source ID
src-83e8ed42b0464bab
Publisher
Name not classified · rules.cityofnewyork.us
Type / language
web-page · language not classified
Published
Not recorded
Updated
Not recorded
Source last checked
No source-level check date
Record last verified
2026-07-26
Dossier created
2026-08-20
Retrieved copy
No local capture recorded
Archive
No archived copy linked
Content hash
No captured content hash
Locator
Open the recorded source note

The implementing rule: defines a covered tool as machine learning, statistical modelling, data analytics or artificial intelligence whose output is used to substantially assist or replace discretionary decision making, and sets out selection rate, scoring rate and impact ratio calculated by sex category, race/ethnicity category and intersectional categories.

Descriptive only — not page/paragraph exact
Claims linked
Background source; no baseline claim points here
Wright et al., Null Compliance: NYC Local Law 144 and the Challenges of Algorithm Accountability (ACM FAccT 2024) arxiv.org · 1 linked claim

Open original source ↗

Stable source ID
src-d173e9be1278798e
Publisher
Name not classified · arxiv.org
Type / language
web-page · language not classified
Published
2024-06-03
Updated
Not recorded
Source last checked
No source-level check date
Record last verified
2026-07-26
Dossier created
2026-08-20
Retrieved copy
No local capture recorded
Archive
Open archived copy ↗ · 2026-03-05
Content hash
No captured content hash
Locator
Open the recorded source note

Peer-reviewed source for the compliance figure: 155 student investigators recorded 391 employers between 24 October and 9 November 2023; 18 posted audit reports and 13 posted transparency notices. Also the source for the 'null compliance' problem, employers holding near-total discretion over whether their system is in scope. Published at FAccT '24, DOI 10.1145/3630106.3658998.

Descriptive only — not page/paragraph exact
Claims linked
Groves, Metcalf, Kennedy, Vecchione and Strait, Auditing Work: Exploring the New York City algorithmic bias audit regime (ACM FAccT 2024) arxiv.org · background

Open original source ↗

Stable source ID
src-4ecd11298d6b0087
Publisher
Name not classified · arxiv.org
Type / language
web-page · language not classified
Published
2024-02-12
Updated
Not recorded
Source last checked
No source-level check date
Record last verified
2026-07-26
Dossier created
2026-08-20
Retrieved copy
No local capture recorded
Archive
No archived copy linked
Content hash
No captured content hash
Locator
Open the recorded source note

The methodological counterweight, from interviews with auditors and practitioners: the law fails to define AEDTs and independent auditors clearly, rests on a flawed transparency-driven theory of change, and industry lobbying narrowed the definition of a covered tool. Also the source characterising LL 144 as the first algorithm auditing system for commercial machine-learning systems.

Descriptive only — not page/paragraph exact
Claims linked
Background source; no baseline claim points here
Office of the New York State Comptroller — Enforcement of Local Law 144, Automated Employment Decision Tools (2 December 2025) osc.ny.gov · background

Open original source ↗

Stable source ID
src-4dda8f61b88a4285
Publisher
Name not classified · osc.ny.gov
Type / language
web-page · language not classified
Published
2025-12-02
Updated
Not recorded
Source last checked
No source-level check date
Record last verified
2026-07-26
Dossier created
2026-08-20
Retrieved copy
No local capture recorded
Archive
No archived copy linked
Content hash
No captured content hash
Locator
Open the recorded source note

Independent state audit covering July 2023 to June 2025: DCWP's system for enforcing the law is ineffective, only two AEDT-related complaints were received in the whole period, and the complaint intake process does not reliably route complaints to DCWP.

Descriptive only — not page/paragraph exact
Claims linked
Background source; no baseline claim points here
New York State Comptroller press release on the DCWP audit (December 2025) osc.ny.gov · background

Open original source ↗

Stable source ID
src-dd580252ec17e825
Publisher
Name not classified · osc.ny.gov
Type / language
web-page · language not classified
Published
2025-12-02
Updated
Not recorded
Source last checked
No source-level check date
Record last verified
2026-07-26
Dossier created
2026-08-20
Retrieved copy
No local capture recorded
Archive
No archived copy linked
Content hash
No captured content hash
Locator
Open the recorded source note

Source for the specific enforcement numbers: DCWP reviewed 32 employers' and vendors' websites and identified one instance of likely non-compliance, while state auditors reviewing the same companies found 17; of 12 test calls to 311 only three reached DCWP.

Descriptive only — not page/paragraph exact
Claims linked
Background source; no baseline claim points here
Known limits of this passport
  • Publisher names and source languages have not yet been classified; domains are recorded without guessing.
  • Existing source notes are descriptive locators, not page- or paragraph-exact citations.
  • A missing archive, publication date or content hash is shown as null rather than inferred.
  • The project-level evidence grade ranks the strongest source in the entry; it is not a truth score for every claim.

Continue exploring

Compare this project

🇺🇸 Local Law 97 and New York's Building Emissions Caps · New York City Both laws collect from non-filers: 1,400 buildings that skipped their emissions report, employers who never published an audit. 🇺🇸 NYC311 Service Requests & Open Data · New York City Enforcement waits for complaints, and 311 is the door: of twelve test calls by state auditors, three reached the regulator. 🇳🇱 Amsterdam Algorithm Register · Amsterdam Amsterdam disclosed its own algorithms from 2020; New York ordered private employers to audit theirs, and 18 of 391 had done so.

Explore the wider context

💸 The Price Nobody Publishes📖 Adaptive traffic signals📖 Civic participation platform📖 Digital identity
📎 Cite this project

1001 Smart Cities (2026). “Local Law 144: Bias Audits for Hiring Algorithms” — New York City, United States. The Smart City Atlas. https://1001smartcities.org/projects/nyc-ai-hiring-audit-law/ (last verified 2026-07-26). Data: CC BY 4.0.

The underlying data is free to reuse with attribution — see the open data page.

🚩 Report an error · 🔔 Follow changes to this entry (RSS)

✉️ Get the next source-checked smart-city project in your inbox

One short email a week: the Landmark, one Insight, the new cities. No spam, one-click unsubscribe. About the newsletter · RSS