Illinois AI Hiring Law: What HB 3773 Says and Why the Notice Rules Are Still Missing

The enrolled text of Public Act 103-0804 adds subdivision (L), titled 'Use of artificial intelligence', to section 2-102 of the Act. Paragraph (1) covers an employer that uses artificial intelligence 'that has the effect of subjecting employees to discrimination on the basis of protected classes' in a listed set of employment decisions, or that uses zip codes as a proxy for protected classes. Paragraph (2) covers an employer that fails to provide notice to an employee that it is using artificial intelligence for those purposes.

The same subdivision tells the Department of Human Rights to adopt any rules necessary for implementation and enforcement, including rules on 'the circumstances and conditions that require notice, the time period for providing notice, and the means for providing notice'. Section 99 of the Act sets the effective date at 1 January 2026.

The wording of paragraph (1) turns on effect. The text does not ask whether the employer meant to discriminate. Read the statute itself for the exact language, because short summaries tend to drop that point.

The Act's definition of employer includes any person employing one or more employees within Illinois during 20 or more calendar weeks in the calendar year of or before the alleged violation. It also includes the State, its political subdivisions and parties to public contracts regardless of headcount. The threshold is in section 2-101 of the Act.

Subdivision (L) lists the decisions it reaches: recruitment, hiring, promotion, renewal of employment, selection for training or apprenticeship, discharge, discipline, tenure, and the terms, privileges or conditions of employment. That list is wider than hiring. A scoring tool used in performance reviews or discipline falls within the same words.

Hinshaw's February 2026 summary says the draft rules also reached agents of an employer, such as recruiters and other third parties acting for it. That point comes from a draft that was later withdrawn, so treat it as a sign of the Department's thinking and check the current text.

Public Act 103-0804 added two definitions to section 2-101. 'Artificial intelligence' means 'a machine-based system that, for explicit or implicit objectives, infers, from the input it receives, how to generate outputs such as predictions, content, recommendations, or decisions that can influence physical or virtual environments'. The definition says it includes generative artificial intelligence.

'Generative artificial intelligence' is defined as an automated computing system that, when prompted, can produce outputs that simulate human-produced content. The Act gives text, images and multimedia as examples.

The definition is broad. It does not name products, and it does not limit itself to tools sold as hiring software. Covington's June 2026 summary of the proposed rules said notice would have been required where AI was used to 'influence or facilitate' a covered decision, and that uses 'merely incidental' to a decision generally would not have needed notice. Hinshaw gave examples of routine software the draft treated as outside the notice duty, such as word processors, spreadsheets and spam filters. Those lines were in the withdrawn text and are not law.

Paragraph (2) is one sentence. It refers to notice to 'an employee'. It does not say what the notice must contain, when it must be given or how.

The law-firm summaries read the duty as reaching applicants too. Burke Warren describes the statutory obligation as notifying applicants and employees when AI is used in employment decisions. The proposed rules would have handled applicants through the job posting, according to Covington. Whether paragraph (2) by itself reaches applicants is a question for counsel, since the sentence uses the word employee.

The table shows what the withdrawn proposal would have required, as reported by the three firms. It is included because it is the only public indication of what the Department considered adequate.

Hinshaw reported in February 2026 that the Department had released draft rules titled 'Subpart J: Use of Artificial Intelligence in Employment'. Burke Warren reports that formal proposed rules followed on 15 May 2026, that the Department withdrew and postponed them on 2 June 2026, and that the public hearing set for 10 June 2026 was canceled. Burke Warren's alert gives no reason for the withdrawal.

Burke Warren describes the withdrawal as a pause in rulemaking and says the statutory obligations stay in force in the meantime. The research notes behind this article record one source saying the rules had not been refiled as of late September 2026. A search for this article on 12 November 2026 found no refiled or adopted rule. The Department's own page on the topic could not be opened, so that status rests on law-firm reporting.

The two summaries of the retention period do not match. Hinshaw's February article says four years. Covington's June article on the proposed rules says three years after the use. They describe different versions of the text. Neither is in force.

Subdivision (L) sits in the list of civil rights violations in employment, so it uses the Act's existing process. Section 7A-102 says a written charge may be filed with the Department within 2 years after the date a civil rights violation allegedly was committed. The Department can also issue a charge itself.

Section 8A-104 lists the relief the Commission may order on finding a violation. It includes a cease and desist order, actual damages, hiring or reinstatement with or without back pay, attorney fees and costs, a compliance report, and action needed to make the complainant whole.

The research notes record that no enforcement action under HB 3773 was found, and they add that absence from search results does not prove there are none.

The comparison below is drawn from the research notes and the sources they cite. Each of these regimes changed in 2025 or 2026, so the dates matter.

The practical difference is what an employer has to be able to show. New York City asks for an audit. Colorado and California ask for notices and records. Illinois asks for a notice whose required form has not been set.

The Artificial Intelligence Video Interview Act took effect on 1 January 2020. It applies to an employer that asks applicants to record video interviews and uses an artificial intelligence analysis of those videos when considering applicants for positions based in Illinois.

Before asking for the video, the employer must notify the applicant that AI may be used to analyze the interview, explain how the AI works and what general types of characteristics it uses, and obtain the applicant's consent. The Act says an employer may not use AI to evaluate applicants who have not consented.

It also limits sharing of the videos and gives applicants a deletion right. On request, the employer must delete the interviews within 30 days and instruct anyone who received copies to delete them. An employer that uses AI video analysis has both statutes to read.

The statute makes failure to give notice a violation today, and a charge can be filed up to two years after the event. The employer will be the one asked to show that a notice was given. None of the items below is prescribed by the statute. They follow from the questions a charge would raise and from the content of the withdrawn proposal.

This is a description of what the sources say, not advice on what your business must do. An employment lawyer can say how the Act applies to a particular tool.

• An inventory of each system that produces a score, ranking, recommendation or decision about applicants or employees, with its vendor.
• For each system, the decisions it feeds: screening, interview selection, promotion, discipline, scheduling or pay.
• The exact text of each notice, with its version and the date it came into use.
• For each person, which notice they received, by what means and on what date.
• Whether zip code or another location field is an input to any model, and why.
• Any accommodation requests and questions received after a notice, and the response.
• Any testing the vendor or the employer has done for disparate results, and the date.