21 laws, regulations and bills that govern how employers may use AI in hiring, firing, managing workers and reporting layoffs. Each row links to the official text and records its status as of 21 Oct 2026. Descriptive only: this table does not rank jurisdictions.
For a mass layoff, relocation or termination "caused in whole or in substantial part by an artificial intelligence (AI) system or other automated technology replacing or automating employment positions", the Cal-WARN notice must include additional information, including "the job functions performed by workers that will be automated by AI or other automated technology"; the Employment Development Department must publish summaries of these notices and a quarterly statewide summary of reported technological displacements, and report to the Legislature by 1 Jan 2028.
Public Act 26-15 (SB 5), An Act Concerning Online Safety, § 26: AI-related layoff disclosure in WARN noticeslaw
in force
"Each employer that serves written notice on the Labor Department pursuant to 29 USC 2102(a) [federal WARN] ... shall disclose to the department, in a form and manner prescribed by the Labor Commissioner, whether the layoffs that are the subject of such written notice are related to the employer's use of artificial intelligence or another technological change."
A9581-B / S8706-B (Bronson), annual employer reporting on AI's impact on employment (new Labor Law § 201-j)bill
proposed
Businesses in New York employing more than 50 people or publicly traded would report annually to the Department of Labor estimates of employees displaced or with reduced hours due to AI, employees hired due to AI, positions not filled because of AI, and information on how AI is used and overseen; DOL would publish an annual statewide report; civil penalty up to $500 per day.
Each WARN notice would have to state whether the job losses are caused, in whole or in part, by the adoption or expansion of AI systems, automation technologies or machine-based processes that replaced or materially changed workers' duties, with the estimated percentage of positions affected and a brief description of the technology where known; the Labor Commissioner would publish quarterly summaries.
New York State Department of Labor WARN portal: disclosure of AI or technological change as a reason for layoffsguidance
in force
The Governor's office states that "DOL has required businesses submitting notices of worker layoffs to convey whether a layoff is related to a businesses' use" of AI or other technological change. The disclosure is a question in the WARN filing system, not a statutory or regulatory requirement.
S. 3108, AI-Related Job Impacts Clarity Act (119th Congress)bill
proposed
Publicly traded companies, federal agencies and other employers designated by regulation would report quarterly to the Secretary of Labor (via the Bureau of Labor Statistics) layoffs "substantially due to" AI replacement or automation, AI-related hires, positions left unfilled and workers retrained for AI-related reasons, with NAICS codes; the Department of Labor would publish quarterly summaries and report to Congress.
Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (AI Act), Annex III point 4 and Article 26: high-risk AI in employment and worker managementlaw
adopted, not yet in force
Classifies as high-risk AI systems "intended to be used for the recruitment or selection of natural persons" and systems used "to make decisions affecting terms of work-related relationships" or "to monitor and evaluate the performance and behaviour of persons in such relationships". Deployers must use them with competent human oversight and, "before putting into service or using a high-risk AI system at the workplace", inform workers' representatives and the affected workers (Art. 26(7)).
Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 (c. 18), section 80: automated decision-making (new UK GDPR Articles 22A-22D)law
in force
Replaces the general ban on solely automated significant decisions with a permission-plus-safeguards model: a decision is solely automated where there is "no meaningful human involvement in the taking of the decision"; controllers (including employers) making such decisions must provide information about the decision, let the person make representations, "obtain human intervention" and contest the decision (Art. 22C); decisions based on special-category data remain restricted (Art. 22B).
SB 947 (McNerney), Employment: automated decision systems ("No Robo Bosses Act of 2026", Chapter 859, Statutes of 2026)law
adopted, not yet in force
Bars employers from relying solely on an automated decision system to discipline or terminate workers; a human must verify such decisions. Where an employer "primarily relied upon an ADS" for a disciplinary or termination decision it must give the employee a written post-use notice and, on request, "a description of the employee's own data" used by the ADS; retaliation against workers asserting these rights is prohibited; enforced by the Labor Commissioner or public prosecutors ($500 per violation).
California Privacy Protection Agency regulations on automated decisionmaking technology (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 11, §§ 7200-7222)regulation
in force
A business that uses ADMT "to make a significant decision concerning a consumer", which includes "employment or independent contracting opportunities or compensation" (hiring, allocation of work and pay, promotion, "demotion, suspension, and termination"), must give a Pre-use Notice of the use of ADMT and of the rights to opt out and to access (§ 7220). It must offer an opt-out unless it provides "a method to appeal the decision to a human reviewer who has the authority to overturn the decision" (§ 7221), and must answer access requests (§ 7222).
Civil Rights Council, Employment Regulations Regarding Automated-Decision Systems (amending the FEHA employment regulations)regulation
in force
Clarifies that use of an automated-decision system "may violate California law if it harms applicants or employees based on protected characteristics, such as gender, race, or disability"; employers and covered entities must "maintain employment records, including automated-decision data, for a minimum of four years"; automated assessments that elicit disability information "may constitute an unlawful medical inquiry".
SB 26-189, Automated Decision-Making Technology (Session Law ch. 131), repealing and re-enacting the Colorado AI Act (SB 24-205) at C.R.S. 6-1-1701 et seq.law
adopted, not yet in force
"Covered domain" includes "employment or an employment opportunity": before using a covered ADMT to materially influence a consequential decision a deployer "shall provide a clear and conspicuous notice" (a prominent public notice suffices). After an adverse outcome the deployer must within 30 days describe the ADMT's role in plain language and, on request, give instructions for correcting inaccurate personal data and "an opportunity for meaningful human review and reconsideration" to the extent commercially reasonable.
A deployer using an automated employment-related decision technology as a "substantial factor" in a decision to hire, promote, discipline, discharge, renew or select for training must, "before such employment-related decision is made", give the employee or applicant a written notice disclosing that the technology is used, its purpose and trade name, the categories and sources of personal data it analyses and how they are assessed, and contact details, and must disclose when a person is interacting with such technology. Use of such technology "shall not be a defense" to a discrimination complaint; enforced solely by the Attorney General.
Public Act 103-0804 (HB 3773), amending the Illinois Human Rights Act, 775 ILCS 5/2-102(L): artificial intelligence in employmentlaw
in force
Makes it a civil rights violation for an employer to use AI in recruitment, hiring, promotion, discipline, discharge, training or other terms of employment in a way that has a discriminatory effect on a protected class, or to use zip codes as a proxy for protected classes. Employers must notify employees that AI is being used for such decisions, in the manner set by Department of Human Rights rules.
HB 1202 (2020), Labor and Employment – Use of Facial Recognition Services – Prohibition (Chapter 446 of 2020)law
in force
"Prohibiting an employer from using certain facial recognition services during an applicant's interview for employment" unless the applicant consents by signing a waiver whose contents the Act specifies.
Local Law 144 of 2021, automated employment decision tools, and the DCWP implementing rulelaw
in force
"Prohibits employers and employment agencies from using an automated employment decision tool unless" the tool has had a bias audit within the past year, a summary of the audit results is publicly available, and the required notices have been given to employees or job candidates; the notice "must be provided 10 business days prior to use of an AEDT".
Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (AI Act), Article 5(1)(f): ban on emotion inference in the workplacelaw
in force
Prohibits placing on the market, putting into service or using "AI systems to infer emotions of a natural person in the areas of workplace and education institutions", except where the system is intended "for medical or safety reasons".
Directive (EU) 2024/2831 on improving working conditions in platform work (Chapter III, algorithmic management)law
adopted, not yet in force
Digital labour platforms must inform platform workers and their representatives when they use automated monitoring or decision-making systems, may not process certain personal data (e.g. emotional or psychological state, private conversations), and must provide human oversight by staff with "the right to override automated decisions". A worker "cannot be fired or dismissed based on a decision taken by an algorithm or an automated decision-making system".
Ley 12/2021, de 28 de septiembre ("Ley Rider"): Estatuto de los Trabajadores art. 64.4(d) and disposición adicional 23ªlaw
in force
Works councils have the right "ser informado por la empresa de los parámetros, reglas e instrucciones en los que se basan los algoritmos o sistemas de inteligencia artificial que afectan a la toma de decisiones que pueden incidir en las condiciones de trabajo, el acceso y mantenimiento del empleo, incluida la elaboración de perfiles". Delivery riders managed "mediante la gestión algorítmica del servicio o de las condiciones de trabajo, a través de una plataforma digital" are presumed employees.
Legge 23 settembre 2025, n. 132, "Disposizioni e deleghe al Governo in materia di intelligenza artificiale" (Articles 11-12)law
in force
Article 11: use of AI at work "deve essere sicuro, affidabile, trasparente" and must respect human dignity and data privacy; "il datore di lavoro o il committente è tenuto a informare il lavoratore dell'utilizzo dell'intelligenza artificiale" in the cases set by art. 1-bis of d.lgs. 152/1997 (fully automated decision or monitoring systems used for hiring, management or termination, task assignment, surveillance and evaluation). Article 12 creates an Observatory at the Ministry of Labour to monitor AI's impact on the labour market.
Framework Act on the Development of Artificial Intelligence and Establishment of Trust (AI Basic Act), Law No. 20676law
in force
Defines "high-impact AI" to include "judgments or evaluations that have a significant impact on the rights and obligations of an individual, such as employment and loan assessments" (Art. 2(4)(g)). Operators providing high-impact AI must run a risk-management plan, provide explanations of outputs where technically feasible, ensure "human management and supervision", keep documentation (Art. 34) and notify users in advance that a product or service is AI-based (Art. 31).
Included: instruments that specifically govern AI or automated decision-making in employment, or that require employers to report AI as a reason for job cuts. General AI laws appear only where they contain employment provisions.
Status and dates are taken from the official text or the legislature's own page, linked in each row, and are re-checked quarterly. A bill's date is its introduction or last recorded action.
The table describes what each instrument requires. It does not score jurisdictions or judge whether a law is good or bad for workers or for AI adoption.
Missing something? Tell us on X at @AILayoffs. Corrections are dated in the changelog.