CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 43Ethics and Social Impacts of AIDigitalization, Law, and RegulationLegal and Labor Studies

Null Compliance: NYC Local Law 144 and the Challenges of Algorithm Accountability

Open access
Wright, Lucas, Muenster, Roxana Mike, Vecchione, Briana, Qu, Tianyao, Pika, Cai, Investigators, COMM/INFO 2450 Student, Metcalf, Jacob +1 more·2024·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2406.01399arXiv 2406.01399
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In July 2023, New York City became the first jurisdiction globally to mandate bias audits for commercial algorithmic systems, specifically for automated employment decisions systems (AEDTs) used in hiring and promotion. Local Law 144 (LL 144) requires AEDTs to be independently audited annually for race and gender bias, and the audit report must be publicly posted. Additionally, employers are obligated to post a transparency notice with the job listing. In this study, 155 student investigators recorded 391 employers' compliance with LL 144 and the user experience for prospective job applicants. Among these employers, 18 posted audit reports and 13 posted transparency notices. These rates could potentially be explained by a significant limitation in the accountability mechanisms enacted by LL 144. Since the law grants employers substantial discretion over whether their system is in scope of the law, a null result cannot be said to indicate non-compliance, a condition we call ``null compliance." Employer discretion may also explain our finding that nearly all audits reported an impact factor over 0.8, a rule of thumb often used in employment discrimination cases. We also find that the benefit of LL 144 to ordinary job seekers is limited due to shortcomings in accessibility and usability. Our findings offer important lessons for policy-makers as they consider regulating algorithmic systems, particularly the degree of discretion to grant to regulated parties and the limitations of relying on transparency and end-user accountability.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2406.01399

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Analyses of the early audit regime highlight concerns about definitional scope, methodological variability, and the risk that compliance may prioritize minimum reporting over substantive fairness improvement.

    “analyses of the early audit regime highlight concerns about definitional scope, methodological variability, and the risk that compliance may prioritize minimum reporting over substantive fairness improvement”

    From The Impact of Structured Validation and Audit Frameworks on the Fairness and Efficiency of AI-Driven Hiring Systems (2025) · cites this paper as Wright et al., 2024

    The Introduction (p. 2) identifies uncertainty about which systems fall within LL 144, and §6.2 (p. 11) finds that published audit reports offered minimal explanation. The Introduction (p. 2) also says the regime makes it impossible to tell whether employment discrimination is declining, supporting the concern that reporting may not yield substantive fairness improvements. The passages reviewed do not establish methodological variability among audits; differences in what reports disclose are not necessarily differences in audit methods. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Early analyses of audit disclosures suggest variability in rigor, method choice, and interpretability, raising questions about whether compliance-only audits are sufficient to meaningfully reduce disparate outcomes in practice.

    “early analyses of audit disclosures suggest variability in rigor, method choice, and interpretability, raising questions about whether compliance-only audits are sufficient to meaningfully reduce disparate outcomes in practice”

    From The Impact of Structured Validation and Audit Frameworks on the Fairness and Efficiency of AI-Driven Hiring Systems (2025) · cites this paper as Wright et al., 2024

    Section 6.2.4 (p. 11) finds that the published audit reports lacked enough explanation for job seekers to interpret them, and the Introduction (p. 2) says the available evidence cannot establish whether LL 144 reduces discrimination. These passages support the concern about interpretability and compliance-only audits, but the paper does not establish variability in audit rigor or method choice across disclosures. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 12

  1. [1][1] Solon Barocas, Moritz Hardt, and Arvind Narayanan. 2023. Fairness and machine learning: Limitations and opportunities . MIT Press. -
  2. [2][2] Solon Barocas and Andrew D. Selbst. 2016. Big data's disparate impact. California law review (2016), 671-732. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24758720 Publisher: JSTOR. -
  3. [6][6] Paul Cairney. 2019. Understanding public policy: theories and issues . Vol. 2. Bloomsbury Publishing. -
  4. [23][23] Gene Foreman, Daniel R. Biddle, Emilie Lounsberry, and Richard G. Jones. 2022. The ethical journalist: Making responsible decisions in the digital age . John Wiley & Sons. -
  5. [38][38] M. Stuart Madden. 1986. The Duty to Warn in Products Liability: Contours and Criticism. West Virginia Law Review 89 (1986), 221. https: //heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/wvb89&id=235&div=&collection= -
  6. [42][42] Aleecia M. McDonald and Lorrie Faith Cranor. 2008. The cost of reading privacy policies. Isjlp 4 (2008), 543. https://heinonline.org/hol-cgibin/get\_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/isjlpsoc4&section=27 Publisher: HeinOnline. -
  7. [45][45] Richard J. Murnane and John B. Willett. 2010. Methods matter: Improving causal inference in educational and social science research . Oxford University Press. -
  8. [47][47] Don Norman. 2013. The design of everyday things: Revised and expanded edition . Basic books. -
  9. [55][55] J. Richard, Judith D. Singer, John B. Willett, and Richard J. Light. 2009. By design: Planning research on higher education . Harvard University Press. -
  10. [58][58] Andrew D Selbst. 2021. An Institutional View of Algorithmic Impact Assessments. Harv. J.L. & Tech. 35 (2021), 78. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3867634 -
  11. [65][65] Daniel J. Solove. 2012. Introduction: Privacy self-management and the consent dilemma. Harv. L. Rev. 126 (2012), 1880. https://heinonline.org/holcgi-bin/get\_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/hlr126&section=87 Publisher: HeinOnline. -
  12. [66][66] Daniel J. Solove. 2021. The Myth of the Privacy Paradox. George Washington Law Review 89 (2021), 1. https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle= hein.journals/gwlr89&id=15&div=&collection= -

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wright, L., Muenster, R. M., Vecchione, B., Qu, T., Pika, Cai, Investigators, C. 2. S., Metcalf, J., & Matias, J. N.
Affiliations
  • Cornell University (US)
  • Senhuang
  • Data & Society Research Institute (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
Pages
1701-1713
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2406.01399
arXiv
2406.01399
OpenAlex
W4399362990
Cited by
43
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 5
FWCI
19.61
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University
  • Center for Advanced Study, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Industrial relations › Legal and Labor Studies
Keywords
algorithmic accountability, algorithmic discrimination, employer compliance, employer discretion, algorithmic regulation, New York City

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review