Critical audit of NYC’s AI hiring law signals increased risk for employers

The New York State Comptroller’s December 2025 audit evaluated the New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection’s (DCWP) enforcement of Local Law 144, which regulates the use of automated employment decision tools (AEDTs) in hiring and promotion. The audit concluded that current enforcement of the law is “ineffective,” citing, among other things, problematic complaint-handling processes and inaccurate compliance reviews.

The Comptroller’s criticism may intensify pressure on the DCWP to increase and improve its enforcement activities. Employers using AEDTs may face a more stringent approach to enforcement and are encouraged to take proactive steps to ensure their compliance programs can withstand greater scrutiny.

Below, we discuss Local Law 144, the Comptroller’s audit, and what businesses can do to prepare for heightened enforcement.

Overview of Local Law 144

New York City’s Local Law 144 imposes bias evaluation and transparency obligations on employers and employment agencies that use AEDTs to screen candidates or evaluate employees for promotion in New York City.

Local Law 144 defines an AEDT as any computational process derived from “machine learning, statistical modeling, data analytics, or artificial intelligence” used to “substantially assist or replace discretionary decision making for employment decisions[.]” The DCWP’s rules implementing Local Law 144 further explain that an AEDT “substantially assists” or “replaces” discretionary decision making when an employer (1) relies exclusively on the tool’s output, (2) weighs that output more heavily than any other criterion, or (3) uses it to overrule human judgment or other factors that had led to a different conclusion.

Under Local Law 144, employers using tools that meet the definition of an AEDT must adhere to three core obligations:

1. Independent bias audit: Employers must engage an independent auditor to conduct an annual bias audit of the tool. The audit must evaluate whether the tool has a potential disparate impact on groups of a particular sex, race, or ethnicity category by calculating selection and scoring rates and their corresponding “impact ratios.”


2. Public transparency: Employers must “clearly and conspicuously” post a summary of the most recent bias audit results on their website, whether maintained by the employer or the employment agency.


3. Candidate notices: Employers must provide clear and timely notice to New York City candidates and employees that an AEDT will be used in their evaluation. The notice must identify the job qualifications and characteristics the tool assesses and inform individuals of their right to “opt out” of the AEDT’s use by requesting an alternative selection process or reasonable accommodation.

Key audit findings signal heightened enforcement risk

The Comptroller’s audit, which reviewed the DCWP’s activities from July 2023 through June 2025, concluded the agency’s system for enforcing Local Law 144 is “ineffective.” The audit highlights several critical deficiencies.

• Flawed complaint intake and passive enforcement: The audit alleged a fundamental breakdown in the DCWP’s complaint-driven enforcement strategy, criticizing the DCWP for not taking proactive steps to remedy the system. The Comptroller found that complaints were often not routed correctly to DCWP and that the DCWP both had unclear instructions on its website and insufficient directions on how to file complaints. For example, auditors discovered that 75 percent of test calls made to the New York City 311 hotline regarding AEDT issues were improperly routed and never reached the DCWP.


• Superficial compliance reviews: The audit also criticized the DCWP’s review of company publicly posted bias audits, noting that the DCWP reviewed 32 such audits but identified only one issue of non-compliance. The Comptroller’s own review of the same set of audits identified at least 17 potential issues of non-compliance.


• Failure to utilize available expertise: The audit stated that the DCWP’s inadequate reviews stemmed from a failure to use proper procedures. The agency, according to the audit, did not use the formal “Enforcement Workbook” or consult with the New York City Office of Technology and Innovation when making determinations about potential violations. The audit also found that the agency’s failure to follow these procedures presumably extended beyond the 32 companies reviewed.

Implications and recommended actions

The Comptroller’s audit signals an expectation of heightened enforcement, putting the DCWP under substantial public pressure. In its response to the audit, the agency agreed to implement the majority of the Comptroller’s recommendations. These commitments include (1) strengthening its complaint-handling process to ensure AEDT-related complaints are properly routed, (2) providing cross-divisional training for staff on handling and managing such complaints, (3) implementing written policies and procedures to promote accurate and consistent handling, and (4) enhancing its enforcement approach through interviews and demonstrations of AEDT tools, where appropriate.

Employers subject to Local Law 144 may expect a new phase of stringent enforcement, potentially including more frequent investigations and higher civil penalties – up to $1,500 per violation per day. The audit provides a roadmap for how the DCWP may identify non-compliant companies. New York City employers using automated tools for hiring or promotion are encouraged to consider the following proactive steps:

1. Conduct a comprehensive AEDT inventory: Determining whether a tool falls under Local Law 144 is a highly fact-specific analysis. Employers are encouraged to work with counsel to inventory all third-party and in-house software used in hiring and promotion processes, as well as analyze how each tool’s output is weighed and used in practice in order to assess its status under the law and advise on potential risks.


2. Achieve and maintain bias audit compliance: Companies using an AEDT are encouraged to secure a compliant bias audit to avoid significant penalties.


• Companies without an existing audit may take immediate action to mitigate legal and financial risk by engaging a qualified independent auditor to conduct the legally required testing and ensuring the final audit and public disclosures meet all of Local Law 144’s stringent requirements.


• Companies with an existing audit are encouraged not to assume a vendor-provided or existing bias audit is compliant. The Comptroller’s audit suggests that prior DCWP reviews were not robust and may have missed legal deficiencies. Employers may consider working with outside counsel to conduct a privileged review of current bias audits to identify and remedy gaps before they become enforcement liabilities.


3. Verify all public disclosures and notices: Companies are encouraged to confirm that the required summary of its audit is “clearly and conspicuously” available on the company’s website and that its candidate notices are being provided correctly and in a timely manner.


4. Document compliance efforts: In anticipation of greater scrutiny from regulators, companies are encouraged to maintain a clear and organized record of their compliance process. This includes AEDT inventory, all bias audits and their results, and records of candidate notice procedures.

Find out more

DLA Piper’s team of artificial intelligence (AI) lawyers, data scientists, and policy advisors help organizations navigate the complex workings of their AI systems and comply with current and developing regulatory requirements. The firm continuously monitors AI updates and developments and the impact on industry across the world.

For more information on AI and the emerging legal and regulatory standards, please visit DLA Piper’s focus page on AI.

Gain insights and perspectives that will help shape your AI strategy through our AI ChatRoom series.

For further information, please contact any of the authors.