Subscribe

AI in Hiring: What Happens to Your Application

Before a person reads your job application, software may already have sorted, scored or filtered it. Here is what is happening, what the law says in New York City, Illinois, California, Colorado, Ontario, the UK and the EU, five questions…

By

Viktoria Bakos

You polish your résumé, press submit, and hear nothing. Did a person ever read it? Many employers now use software to sort, score or filter applications before a human looks at them, and some use it to analyse recorded video interviews. This guide explains what is happening, what the law says in several places, and what you can ask. It is general information, not legal advice.

A law that was hard to see working

New York City was one of the first places to regulate this. Since July 2023, its Local Law 144 has said employers and agencies may not use an “automated employment decision tool” unless it has had a bias audit within the past year, a summary of the results is public, and candidates are told about the tool in advance (NYC Department of Consumer and Worker Protection [DCWP], n.d.).

In December 2025, New York State’s Comptroller audited how the city enforced that law and called the enforcement ineffective. According to a summary by law firm DLA Piper, 75 percent of the auditors’ test calls to the city’s 311 line about these tools were routed to the wrong place. When the city reviewed 32 companies, it found one compliance issue; the auditors, looking at the same companies, found at least 17 potential issues. The city agreed to most of the recommendations (Eigen et al., 2026).

The lesson is not that the law is useless. Rules only help if someone notices when they are broken, and that is often the applicant.

What happens to an application

Some tools simply parse your CV into fields. Others rank candidates, screen out anyone who misses a requirement, or score recorded interview answers. The UK’s data protection regulator audited several providers of these tools and found good practice alongside real problems: some search features let recruiters filter out candidates with certain protected characteristics, and some tools guessed people’s gender or ethnicity from their application or even their name, often without the candidate knowing (Information Commissioner’s Office [ICO], 2024, p. 3).

Key idea: A bias audit

A bias audit checks whether a tool selects or scores different groups of people at noticeably different rates, for example women compared with men. It is useful, because a tool can be unfair without anyone intending it. But an audit is a snapshot of one tool at one time. It does not tell you whether the tool is accurate for your job, whether it was changed after the audit, or whether anyone reviewed your result. For you, it is a starting point for questions, not proof of fairness.

Your rights, depending on where you live

  • New York City. Employers using a covered tool must have a bias audit from the past year, publish a summary, and give candidates notice at least 10 business days before using it (DCWP, n.d.).
  • Illinois. If an employer uses AI to analyse a recorded video interview, it must tell you beforehand, explain how the AI works and what it looks for, and get your consent; it may not use AI on applicants who have not consented. You can ask for the videos to be deleted within 30 days (Artificial Intelligence Video Interview Act, as reproduced by AGORA, n.d.). Since January 1, 2026, the state’s Human Rights Act also treats AI use with a discriminatory effect in job decisions as a civil rights violation, bars zip codes as a proxy for protected characteristics, and requires notice when AI is used (Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, 2025). Detailed notice rules were postponed in June 2026, but the law still applies (Colvin et al., 2026).
  • California. Since October 1, 2025, state regulations make clear that employers cannot use automated decision systems to discriminate, and must keep records, including automated-decision data, for four years (Davis et al., 2025).
  • Colorado. In May 2026 Colorado replaced its 2024 AI law with a narrower one covering consequential decisions, including employment. It provides for notice, a plain-language explanation within 30 days of an adverse decision, and a right to request meaningful human review; several duties start January 1, 2027 (Colorado General Assembly, 2026).
  • United States, federally. Anti-discrimination law applies whether a person or software makes the call. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission removed its 2023 AI guidance from its website in January 2025 (Rigney et al., 2025), but the underlying laws did not change.
  • Ontario, Canada. Since January 1, 2026, employers with 25 or more employees must say in public job postings whether they use AI to screen, assess or select applicants, and must tell interviewed applicants within 45 days whether a decision has been made (Government of Ontario, 2026).
  • United Kingdom. You can ask an employer for a copy of your personal data, usually answered within one month (ICO, n.d.-a). Where a significant decision is made solely by automated means, the law requires safeguards: information about the decision, a chance to make representations, human intervention and a way to contest it (ICO, 2026).
  • European Union. The AI Act classes AI used to filter applications and evaluate candidates as high-risk (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, Annex III, point 4). According to law firm K&L Gates, a 2026 amendment moved those obligations to December 2, 2027 (Pearce & Nietsch, 2026).
  • Australia. From December 10, 2026, organisations covered by the Privacy Act must explain in their privacy policies the kinds of significant decisions made or substantially informed by computer programs (Office of the Australian Information Commissioner [OAIC], 2026).

Five questions you can ask

  1. “Do you use any automated tool to screen, rank or assess applications for this role?”
  2. “What does it look at, and is a person reviewing the results before anyone is rejected?”
  3. “Can I request an alternative process or a reasonable accommodation?” This matters especially if you have a disability or the tool uses timed games or video.
  4. “Where can I see the bias audit or other testing for this tool?” In New York City, a summary should already be public.
  5. “Can I have a copy of the personal data you hold on me, and can you delete my video interview?”

Keep the job ad, any notice you received and your correspondence. If you are turned down within minutes of applying, note the time.

Where to complain

For organizations. If you hire with software, be honest about what it decides. Chapter 3 of Operational AI Readiness, Classifying Decision-Influencing AI Without Lying to Yourself, helps you tell a helper from a gatekeeper. Chapter 5 covers human review that actually changes outcomes, and Appendix D is a question bank for your hiring-tool vendor. Read it free, or test one workflow with the free readiness assessment.

What the record does not show

No regulator we checked publishes how many employers use these tools or how many applications are rejected unread. Our account of New York’s audit relies on a law firm’s summary because the Comptroller’s site blocked our access, and for Illinois we relied on a reproduction of the statute and law firm summaries. Other states, provinces and EU countries may add rights we have not covered. If a deadline matters, check the official page.

Next step. Whether you are applying for jobs or answer for the tools that screen them, the free book explains what responsible use looks like in practice. Read Operational AI Readiness free.

FairByDesign is reader-funded. If this helped, get the free Mercury Brief or see ways to support. Support never buys editorial control.

References

AGORA. (n.d.). Artificial Intelligence Video Interview Act (Illinois HB 2557, 101st General Assembly) [Statute text]. Emerging Technology Observatory. https://agora.eto.tech/instrument/304

Bakos, V. (2026). Operational AI readiness: A practitioner guide to governing AI that is already live. FairByDesign. https://fairbydesign.org/operational-ai-readiness/

Colorado General Assembly. (2026). SB26-189: Automated decision-making technology. https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb26-189

Colvin, J. L., Francis, S. R. D., Ochs, D., & Zagger, Z. V. (2026, June 4). Illinois postpones proposed regulations on AI in employment. Ogletree Deakins. https://ogletree.com/insights-resources/blog-posts/illinois-postpones-proposed-regulations-on-ai-in-employment/

Davis, F. A., Tomezsko, S. B., Dhupar, A., Richards, D., & Cho, C. G. (2025, August 12). New California regulations on employers’ use of AI to make decisions go into effect Oct. 1, 2025. Paul Hastings. https://www.paulhastings.com/insights/client-alerts/new-california-regulations-on-employers-use-of-ai-to-make-decisions-go-into-effect-oct-1-2025

Eigen, Z., Kelly, B., Tobey, D., Carr, A., Kloeppel, K., & Mansur, J. (2026, January 30). Critical audit of NYC AI hiring law signals increased risk for employers. DLA Piper. https://www.dlapiper.com/en/insights/publications/2026/01/critical-audit-of-nyc-ai-hiring-law-signals-increased-risk-for-employers

Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani. (2025, December). Amendments to Illinois Human Rights Act to regulate use of AI in employment decisions. https://www.grsm.com/insight/amendments-to-illinois-human-rights-act-to-regulate-use-of-ai-in-employment-decisions/

Government of Ontario. (2026, February 24). Your guide to the Employment Standards Act: Requirements related to publicly advertised job postings. https://www.ontario.ca/document/your-guide-employment-standards-act-0/requirements-related-publicly-advertised-job

Illinois Department of Human Rights. (n.d.). For filers (complainants). https://dhr.illinois.gov/charge-process/filers.html

Information Commissioner’s Office. (2024). AI tools in recruitment: Audit outcomes report. https://cy.ico.org.uk/media2/migrated/4031620/ai-in-recruitment-outcomes-report.pdf

Information Commissioner’s Office. (2026, March 31). What are the ADM safeguards? [Draft guidance]. https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/individual-rights/automated-decision-making/what-are-the-adm-safeguards/

Information Commissioner’s Office. (n.d.-a). Getting copies of your information (SAR). https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/getting-copies-of-your-information-subject-access-request/

NYC Department of Consumer and Worker Protection. (n.d.). Automated employment decision tools (AEDT). https://www.nyc.gov/site/dca/about/automated-employment-decision-tools.page

Office of the Australian Information Commissioner. (2026, September 30). New resources on transparency for use of AI and automated decision-making. https://www.oaic.gov.au/news/media-centre/new-resources-on-transparency-for-use-of-ai-and-automated-decision-making

Pearce, S., & Nietsch, T. (2026, July 31). EU digital omnibus on AI enters into force. National Law Review (K&L Gates). https://natlawreview.com/article/eu-digital-omnibus-ai-enters-force

Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (Artificial Intelligence Act), annex III. European Commission AI Act Service Desk. https://ai-act-service-desk.ec.europa.eu/en/ai-act/annex-3

Rigney, E. L., Moore, N. C., & Sparhawk, I. F. (2025, January 31). The changing landscape of AI: Federal guidance for employers reverses course with new administration. K&L Gates. https://www.klgates.com/The-Changing-Landscape-of-AI-Federal-Guidance-for-Employers-Reverses-Course-with-New-Administration-1-31-2025

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (n.d.). How to file a charge of employment discrimination. https://www.eeoc.gov/how-file-charge-employment-discrimination

Keep reading

More reporting

All reporting →

Leave a Reply