California’s ADMT rules and NYC’s Local Law 144 both regulate automated decision-making in employment contexts, but they use fundamentally different regulatory models. Understanding both is essential for employers with California employees and New York City operations.
The Core Regulatory Approach
NYC Local Law 144 takes a technology-first approach: it requires bias audits of specific AI tools (AEDTs) used in hiring, with public disclosure of audit results. The requirement is prescriptive — if you use a covered tool, you must audit it annually and publish the results.
California ADMT rules take a rights-based approach: they give consumers (including employees and job applicants) rights to opt out, access information, and correct errors. Businesses that use ADMT for covered purposes must disclose, provide opt-outs, and conduct risk assessments.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Dimension | NYC Local Law 144 | California ADMT |
|---|---|---|
| Regulatory model | Mandatory audit + disclosure | Consumer rights + risk assessment |
| Covered context | Hiring and promotion decisions using AEDTs | Significant decisions using ADMT (broader) |
| Who bears the obligation | Employers and employment agencies | Businesses subject to CPPA |
| Annual audit required | Yes | No (risk assessment required, not annual audit) |
| Public disclosure required | Yes (audit results on website) | No (privacy notice disclosure, not audit results) |
| Consumer opt-out right | No explicit opt-out | Yes — opt out of ADMT use |
| Bias testing methodology | Specified (selection rate analysis by protected class) | Not specified (business defines risk assessment) |
| Penalty for violation | $1,500/day per violation | CPPA enforcement, up to $7,500/violation |
| Private right of action | No | Limited (for certain violations) |
The Employment AI Overlap
Both laws apply to employers using AI in hiring decisions. If you’re a California employer with NYC office positions:
NYC LL 144 obligations:
- Annual bias audit of any AEDT used for NYC positions
- Publish audit results on website
- Notify candidates before AEDT use (10 business days notice)
California ADMT obligations:
- Disclose ADMT use for hiring in privacy notice
- Provide opt-out mechanism for California resident applicants
- Conduct pre-use risk assessment for high-risk ADMT
- Honor opt-out requests from California residents
The opt-out gap: NYC LL 144 doesn’t give candidates the right to opt out of AEDT evaluation. California ADMT does. An employer operating in both must build an opt-out process for California resident applicants even if they’re not required to offer alternatives in NYC.
What Each Framework Is Good At
NYC LL 144 strengths:
- Concrete, measurable requirement (selection rate ratios)
- Public accountability through published audit results
- Creates market pressure on AEDT vendors to improve fairness
NYC LL 144 weaknesses:
- Narrow focus (only AEDTs in hiring)
- No consumer opt-out right
- Audit methodology is backward-looking (historical data only)
California ADMT strengths:
- Broader scope (all significant ADMT uses, not just hiring)
- Consumer agency through opt-out right
- Principles-based risk assessment allows context-specific evaluation
California ADMT weaknesses:
- Less prescriptive methodology (harder to know if you’re compliant)
- Opt-out right creates operational complexity
- Risk assessment requirements are still being interpreted
The Future Direction
NYC LL 144 represents the first wave: specific technology, specific use case, specific audit requirement. California ADMT represents the second wave: broader scope, rights-based, with flexibility for businesses to define how they assess risk.
Colorado and Virginia are following a third model: comprehensive impact assessments for all high-risk AI, closer to the EU AI Act approach.
Employers using AI in hiring should expect all three models to be relevant over time, as state AI laws proliferate and federal legislation remains uncertain.
Practical Compliance for Both
If you’re subject to both NYC LL 144 and California ADMT:
- Conduct your NYC annual bias audit (fulfills NYC requirement; useful evidence for California risk assessment)
- Include ADMT disclosure in your California-compliant privacy notice
- Build opt-out mechanism for California resident applicants
- Use your NYC bias audit results as part of your California risk assessment documentation
- Train HR on both frameworks — they have different candidate-facing obligations
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always consult qualified counsel before making compliance decisions. Try the free compliance checker →
Keep the Ledger coming.
A weekly edition of new regulations, enforcement actions, and compliance deadlines — delivered every Friday. Free forever. No tracking pixels.