The enforcement date for NYC Local Law 144 has been pushed back to 5 July 2023, and the city has held a second public hearing on the proposed rules. Auditors must be independent third parties, and there is support for widening the scope of audits beyond the bias risk vertical. There are concerns that the definitions of AEDTs in the updated rules are too narrow, potentially allowing bad-faith actors to argue that they are not within the scope of the legislation. A third version of the rules may be released before the law goes into effect.

The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has published a Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP) for the 2023-2027 fiscal years, which prioritizes the regulation of AI and automated employment tools to prevent discrimination against protected groups. The EEOC aims to ensure that these tools do not disproportionately impact protected subgroups, and has launched initiatives to examine the impact of AI on employment decisions. The EEOC recently sued iTutorGroup for age discrimination due to their use of software to reject older applicants, highlighting the importance of regulation in preventing AI-related discrimination in employment.

New York City's Local Law 144 mandates the use of independent impartial bias audits for automated employment decision tools (AEDTs) used for employment or promotions. The enforcement date has been pushed back to 2023 due to concerns about who qualifies as an independent auditor and the suitability of the impact ratio metrics. The updated rules clarify that bias audits must be conducted by a third party and include metrics for calculated impact ratios based on selection rate or average score. The audit can be based on test data when historical data is not available. Additionally, employers must provide AEDT data retention policies, making them available on their website. Holistic AI offers auditing services for businesses seeking compliance.

AI regulation is growing significantly, with governments considering AI regulations, policies, and strategies to manage AI risks and harms. The EU has proposed the AI Act, which takes a risk-based approach and establishes four categories of AI systems based on potential harms. California has proposed regulations to extend non-discriminatory practices to automated decision systems and to regulate the day-to-day use of automated tools in the workplace. Both acts require ongoing monitoring and re-evaluation when significant changes are made to the system. The EU AI Act is more expansive and takes a sector-agnostic approach, while California's proposed laws are narrowly focused mainly on automated employment decision tools. Holistic AI offers a risk management platform to help enterprises identify risks and recommend steps to mitigate them. This blog article is not intended to provide legal advice or a legal opinion.

The Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP) in New York City held a public hearing on proposed rules for the NYC Bias Audit Legislation. Attendees were given the opportunity to testify, and many called for independent third-party audits to ensure impartiality and compliance with the legislation. There were concerns about the use of impact ratios as a metric for bias in small sample sizes, and more clarification is needed on notice requirements and the role of vendors of automated employment decision tools (AEDTs). Despite overwhelming support for the legislation, there is a need for additional legislation to hold developers and employers accountable for their actions and ensure the safety of AI systems. Holistic AI can help businesses identify risks, establish a risk management framework, and comply with relevant legislation.