Last reviewed: April 27, 2026
Key Takeaways
- Illinois has two distinct AI employment laws in force as of January 1, 2026, and they cover different things. AIVICA (the Artificial Intelligence Video Interview Act, 820 ILCS 42, effective January 1, 2020) governs only video-interview AI. HB 3773 (Public Act 103-0804, effective January 1, 2026) amends the Illinois Human Rights Act to cover all AI use in employment decisions.
- HB 3773 creates two civil rights violations: (a) using AI that has a discriminatory effect on protected classes, and (b) failing to notify employees and applicants when AI is used in employment decisions. It also prohibits using zip codes as a proxy for protected classes.
- The Illinois Department of Human Rights (IDHR) was tasked with issuing implementing rules for HB 3773. As of April 27, 2026, those rules have not been published. The substantive obligations are nevertheless live — an employee can file a discrimination charge with IDHR today.
- For employers using video-interview AI tools, three laws operate concurrently: AIVICA + HB 3773 + BIPA (Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act). The court in Deyerler v. HireVue (N.D. Ill., February 2024) held that AIVICA and BIPA impose “different but concurrent” obligations.
- HR Tech vendors face a sharper version of the same problem: any AI tool sold into Illinois must be designed for AIVICA + HB 3773 + BIPA compliance from day one, with documentation supporting employer disclosures.
What Does AIVICA — the 2020 Video Interview Law — Require?
Illinois was the first US state to put statutory guardrails on AI in hiring. The Artificial Intelligence Video Interview Act (820 ILCS 42), enacted as Public Act 101-260, took effect on January 1, 2020. It applies narrowly: it only governs employers who ask applicants to record video interviews and use AI to analyze those recordings.
When AIVICA applies, the employer must do four things before requesting the video interview (820 ILCS 42/5):
| Section | Obligation |
|---|---|
| Sec. 5(1) | Notify each applicant before the interview that AI may be used to analyze the video and assess fitness for the position |
| Sec. 5(2) | Provide information explaining how the AI works and what general types of characteristics it uses to evaluate applicants |
| Sec. 5(3) | Obtain consent from the applicant to be evaluated by AI |
| Sec. 10 | Limit sharing of recorded videos to persons whose expertise or technology is necessary to evaluate the applicant |
| Sec. 15 | On applicant request, delete the recordings within 30 days and instruct any third parties who received copies to do the same |
A 2021 amendment (Public Act 102-47, effective January 1, 2022) added Section 20 — a demographic reporting requirement. Employers who rely solely on AI analysis of video interviews to decide who advances to in-person interviews must report the race and ethnicity of applicants annually to the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity (DCEO) by December 31. DCEO then reports to the Governor and General Assembly by July 1 of each year on whether the data shows racial bias.
AIVICA does not specify direct penalties. Enforcement happens through general civil rights mechanisms — affected applicants can pursue claims through the Illinois Department of Human Rights or in court under the Illinois Human Rights Act, which since January 2026 explicitly addresses AI discrimination via HB 3773.
What Did the 2026 HB 3773 Update Add?
HB 3773 (Public Act 103-0804) was signed by Governor Pritzker on August 9, 2024 with a delayed effective date of January 1, 2026. It does not amend AIVICA. Instead, it adds a new subdivision (L) to Section 2-102 of the Illinois Human Rights Act (775 ILCS 5/2-102(L)).
The amendment makes two things civil rights violations under the IHRA.
First, it is a civil rights violation for an employer to use AI that “has the effect of subjecting employees to discrimination on the basis of protected classes.” The covered contexts are listed explicitly: recruitment, hiring, promotion, renewal of employment, selection for training or apprenticeship, discharge, discipline, tenure, or terms, privileges, or conditions of employment.
Second, it is a civil rights violation for an employer to fail to provide notice to an employee that AI is being used in any of those covered contexts.
The statute also explicitly prohibits using zip codes as a proxy for protected classes — a direct response to AI hiring tools that have used location data as a stand-in for race or ethnicity.
A subsequent technical amendment, Public Act 104-0417, was effective August 15, 2025. It touched Section 2-102 alongside other IHRA changes; the current codified version reflects all amendments.
The IHRA already prohibited employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, ancestry, age, marital status, disability, sexual orientation, military status, citizenship status, work authorization status, pregnancy, and several other categories. HB 3773 extends that protection by making AI use a covered conduct surface — not a separate substantive law, but a new way for the existing protections to apply.
Why this is structurally significant
HB 3773 is broader than AIVICA in three ways. It covers all AI use in employment, not just video-interview AI. It adds an outcomes-based discrimination test, not just a procedural notice/consent regime. And it integrates with the IHRA’s existing complaint process at IDHR, which has decades of enforcement history and case law to build on.
It is also more open-ended than AIVICA in one important way: IDHR rules have not been published as of April 27, 2026. The Department’s own legislative-update page states rules are in development. The notice obligation’s specific format, timing, and content remain unspecified. The substantive prohibition (no discriminatory AI use) needs no implementing rules to be enforceable — using AI that produces a disparate impact on a protected class is already a civil rights violation under the statute as written.
Who Must Comply?
Both laws apply broadly to employers operating in Illinois, regardless of where the employer is headquartered. The triggering tests differ:
| Law | Triggering condition |
|---|---|
| AIVICA (820 ILCS 42) | Employer asks applicants to record video interviews AND uses AI to analyze the recordings AND positions are based in Illinois |
| HB 3773 (775 ILCS 5/2-102(L)) | Employer uses AI in any covered employment decision (recruitment, hiring, promotion, etc.) AND has Illinois-based employees or applicants |
In practice, an employer with even one Illinois-based employee or applicant is likely covered by HB 3773 if it uses any AI in employment decisions. There is no statutory headcount threshold. Vendors who sell AI-powered employment tools into Illinois are not directly regulated by HB 3773 (the statute targets “employers”), but their products must enable employer compliance — and they face indemnification exposure under master service agreements when an employer is investigated by IDHR.
Both laws contain no formal small-employer exemption. The IHRA itself applies to employers with 1 or more employees as of 2020 (originally 15+, expanded by P.A. 100-1066), so HB 3773 reaches very small Illinois employers.
What Are the Specific Compliance Requirements?
Notice and Consent
Under AIVICA (Sec. 5): notice and consent are required only before video interviews where AI analysis is used. Notice must explain that AI may be used to analyze the video, plus a separate explanation of how the AI works and what characteristics it evaluates. Consent must be obtained before the interview.
Under HB 3773: notice is required when the employer uses AI in any covered employment context. The format and timing are pending IDHR rulemaking, but the obligation itself is in force. Best practice as of April 2026: provide written notice in offer letters, employee handbooks, and pre-application disclosures whenever AI tools influence the relevant decisions.
Data Handling
Under AIVICA (Sec. 15): on applicant request, recorded videos must be deleted within 30 days, and any third parties holding copies must be instructed to delete them too. The statute does not require routine deletion absent a request, but most vendors structure their products to delete videos automatically after a fixed retention period to limit liability under BIPA.
Under HB 3773: no explicit data-handling rules in the statute. IDHR may add specifics by rule.
Bias Testing
Neither AIVICA nor HB 3773 mandates a specific bias-testing methodology. AIVICA Sec. 20 requires demographic reporting (race and ethnicity of applicants who received video interviews vs. those who advanced to in-person interviews vs. those hired) when the employer relies solely on AI analysis to determine in-person interview eligibility. HB 3773 prohibits AI use that has a discriminatory effect, which functionally requires employers to monitor for disparate impact — but does not specify a four-fifths rule, a statistical test, or a frequency.
The substantive standard is closer to Title VII’s disparate-impact analysis than to NYC Local Law 144’s mandatory annual bias audit. Best practice: conduct disparate-impact testing at deployment and annually thereafter, document the methodology, and retain results in case of an IDHR charge.
Reporting
AIVICA Sec. 20 requires the demographic data report to DCEO by December 31 of each year (covering the 12-month period ending November 30). DCEO publishes a follow-up assessment by July 1 each year.
HB 3773 has no separate reporting obligation. The IHRA’s existing complaint process applies — employees who believe AI has been used to discriminate or used without notice can file a charge with IDHR.
How Does Illinois Compare to Other State AI Hiring Laws?
| Dimension | Illinois (AIVICA + HB 3773) | NYC Local Law 144 | Colorado AI Act | Texas TRAIGA |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Effective date | Jan 1, 2020 (AIVICA); Jan 1, 2026 (HB 3773) | July 5, 2023 | June 30, 2026 | January 1, 2026 |
| Scope | Video interviews (AIVICA) + all employment AI (HB 3773) | Automated employment decision tools used by NYC employers + agencies | All “high-risk” AI in 8 consequential-decision domains, including employment | Specific prohibited harms (CSAM, manipulation, unconsented biometrics, discrimination) |
| Required bias audit | No mandatory annual audit; demographic reporting under AIVICA Sec. 20 only | Yes — independent annual audit, public posting of results | Risk management program + impact assessments (NIST RMF as safe harbor) | None |
| Notice requirement | Yes (both laws) | Yes — 10 business days before AEDT use | Yes — pre-decision + adverse-decision rights | Yes (state agencies only) |
| Liability standard | Discriminatory effect (HB 3773 / IHRA) + notice/consent (AIVICA) | Audit-based + procedural | Outcome-based duty of care | Intent-based |
| Penalties | Through IHRA complaint process | DCWP fines $375-$1,500 per violation | Up to $20,000 per violation | $10K-$200K per violation (curable/uncurable split) |
| Private right of action | Yes — through IHRA in court after IDHR exhaustion | No (DCWP enforcement only) | No (CO AG only) | No (TX AG only) |
| NIST AI RMF safe harbor | Not specified | Not specified | Yes — explicit affirmative defense | Not specified |
Three observations matter for HR teams operating across these states:
One: Illinois (HB 3773) is the only state in this group that gives affected employees a private right of action through the IHRA. Plaintiffs’ lawyers will treat Illinois as a more attractive forum than Colorado, Texas, or NYC for AI discrimination claims.
Two: NYC LL 144’s mandatory bias audit is a compliance lift Illinois does not yet require — but if you operate in both jurisdictions, the same independent bias audit largely satisfies the Illinois disparate-impact standard.
Three: Colorado’s AI Act names NIST AI RMF as an affirmative defense; Illinois does not. But adopting NIST AI RMF is still recommended for Illinois employers because the documentation it produces (risk assessments, bias tests, impact analyses) directly supports a defense under the IHRA’s disparate-impact analysis. For the broader US enforcement picture, see our AI liability in the United States guide. For the federal preemption push that could affect all of these state laws, see our White House AI Framework 2026 analysis.
What Is the Compliance Checklist for HR Teams?
1. Inventory every AI tool that touches an employment decision. Resume screening, scheduling, performance analytics, video-interview analysis, promotion ranking, termination prediction, even AI-assisted note-taking in interviews. If it influences a decision listed in HB 3773 (recruitment, hiring, promotion, renewal, selection for training, discharge, discipline, tenure, or terms/privileges/conditions of employment), it is in scope.
2. Map each tool against the three Illinois laws.
- Does it process video interviews with AI analysis? → AIVICA applies (notice, consent, deletion, demographic reporting if used solely for in-person interview gating)
- Does it process biometric data (facial features, voiceprints)? → BIPA applies (written release, public biometric policy, retention/destruction schedule). Per Deyerler v. HireVue, AIVICA and BIPA impose “different but concurrent” obligations.
- Does it influence any HB 3773-listed decision? → HB 3773 notice + non-discrimination apply
3. Build the notice infrastructure. Until IDHR publishes implementing rules for HB 3773, draft your own written notice covering: (a) which AI tools are used, (b) what they do at a high level, (c) what employment decisions they influence, (d) what protected-class data, if any, they process. Include this in offer letters, employee handbooks, and pre-application disclosures. Keep the notice editable so you can update it once IDHR rules drop.
4. Run disparate-impact testing. At deployment for any new AI tool, then annually thereafter. Document the methodology (four-fifths rule, statistical regression, or another defensible approach) and retain results. If your AI flags or screens applicants disproportionately by protected class, the tool needs adjustment regardless of whether IDHR has charged anyone.
5. Audit for zip-code proxies. HB 3773 explicitly prohibits zip code as a proxy for protected classes. Pull the feature list of every AI tool in inventory and confirm zip codes are not inputs (or, if they are, that they are not weighted in a way that produces racial or socioeconomic disparities).
6. Rewrite vendor contracts. Any HR Tech vendor servicing your Illinois operations should warrant compliance with AIVICA, HB 3773, and BIPA, with indemnification for IDHR investigations and BIPA class actions. Require the vendor to provide the technical documentation you need for the HB 3773 notice.
7. Implement NIST AI Risk Management Framework governance. While Illinois does not name NIST as a safe harbor, the documentation NIST produces (Govern / Map / Measure / Manage) directly supports IHRA disparate-impact defense and aligns with Colorado’s affirmative defense if you operate there too.
8. Train your HR team and managers. Anyone who configures, deploys, or interprets AI hiring tool output needs to understand: when the tool can be used, what notice must accompany its use, what to do when an applicant invokes a deletion request under AIVICA Sec. 15, and how to escalate disparate-impact concerns.
What Is the Compliance Checklist for HR Tech Vendors?
1. Build the three-law overlay into the product. Your tool sold into Illinois must enable employer compliance with AIVICA + HB 3773 + BIPA simultaneously. Ship: AIVICA-compliant notice/consent flow at the applicant-facing layer; biometric data handling with retention/destruction controls (BIPA); a “characteristics evaluated” disclosure that satisfies AIVICA Sec. 5(2); and configurable deletion workflows for AIVICA Sec. 15 requests.
2. Document the AI’s methodology for HB 3773 notice. Employer customers will need to give meaningful notice under HB 3773. Provide them with a plain-language description of: what the AI does, what data it processes, what kinds of employment decisions it influences, what it does not do. Update this whenever the model changes.
3. Retain bias-testing results and share on request. Run disparate-impact testing on your model and make the results available to employer customers for their HB 3773 defense. This is increasingly a contractual expectation, not just a courtesy.
4. Strip zip-code proxies. If your model uses zip codes as a feature, document why and what alternatives have been tested. Post-HB 3773, employers will increasingly demand zip-code-free model variants for Illinois deployments.
5. Build an audit trail. Every prediction, every decision suggestion, every input weight — log them. When an employee files an IDHR charge, the employer will need to reconstruct what the AI saw and what it produced. If your product cannot produce that audit trail, you have a contract problem and a litigation problem.
6. Update the security audit. AI hiring tools are now a multi-state enforcement target. Reconfirm your SOC 2, ISO 27001, and (for biometric tools) BIPA-specific posture annually.
Our recommendation. If you are a hiring-platform vendor, treat Illinois as the most demanding state-law floor in the US for AI hiring tools. Build to that floor and the rest of the US becomes a delta. If you are an employer, treat HB 3773’s “discriminatory effect” standard as your real exposure — the notice violation is bounded; the disparate-impact violation can produce a class action.
Sources
Official Sources
- AIVICA codified text — 820 ILCS 42 (Artificial Intelligence Video Interview Act): ilga.gov
- Illinois Human Rights Act, 775 ILCS 5/2-102 (with HB 3773 / P.A. 103-0804 amendment): ilga.gov
- Public Act 101-260 (AIVICA original) — signed 2019, effective Jan 1, 2020
- Public Act 102-47 (AIVICA Sec. 20 demographic reporting) — effective Jan 1, 2022
- Public Act 103-0804 (HB 3773) — signed Aug 9, 2024, effective Jan 1, 2026
- Public Act 104-0417 — effective Aug 15, 2025 (subsequent IHRA amendment)
- Illinois Department of Human Rights (IDHR) — implementing rule status: dhr.illinois.gov
Analysis & Commentary
- ailawsbystate.com — “Illinois AI Laws 2026: Complete Compliance Guide” (April 16, 2026): ailawsbystate.com
- aicompliancedocuments.com — “Illinois HB3773 Is Live” (March 14, 2026): aicompliancedocuments.com
- K&L Gates / JDSupra — “Illinois Anti-Discrimination Law to Address AI Goes Into Effect on 1 January 2026” (May 2025): jdsupra.com
- Dorsey & Whitney / JDSupra — “Illinois Employment Law Updates for 2026” (April 7, 2026): jdsupra.com
- RiskTemplates — “Illinois AI Video Interview Act: What Employers and HR Tech Vendors Must Know” (April 3, 2026): risktemplate.com
- Regulations.AI — Illinois HB 3773 page: regulations.ai
Case Law
- Deyerler v. HireVue, N.D. Ill. (February 2024) — concurrent AIVICA and BIPA obligations
Data Sources
- BillTrack50 IL HB3773 detail: billtrack50.com
- Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity (DCEO) — annual demographic reports under AIVICA Sec. 20
Related Reading
US AI Regulation Series:
- NIST AI Risk Management Framework Explained — the governance framework that supports an IHRA disparate-impact defense
- Colorado AI Act 2026: What Developers and Deployers Must Do — the closest state analogue, with broader scope and an NIST RMF affirmative defense
- Texas TRAIGA Compliance Guide — the prohibited-harms framework alternative to Illinois’s discrimination model
- AI Liability in the United States — how Illinois’s private right of action under IHRA fits into the broader US AI litigation landscape
- White House AI Framework 2026 — the federal preemption push that could affect all state AI employment laws
- NYC Local Law 144: AI Bias Audit Guide — first US mandatory bias audit; DCWP enforcement now active
- FDA AI Medical Devices: PCCP + EU AI Act Comparison — 1,451+ AI devices authorized; PCCP framework for adaptive AI
Cross-jurisdiction:
- EU vs US AI Regulation: The Definitive Comparison — how Illinois fits in the EU/US regulatory architecture
This article provides general information about AI regulation and does not constitute legal advice. Laws and policies change frequently. Consult qualified legal counsel for compliance decisions specific to your organization. Reg Intel is not a law firm and does not provide legal services.
Last verified: April 27, 2026. IDHR implementing rules for HB 3773 are pending as of this date. The substantive obligations are nevertheless in force. Re-verify IDHR rule status before relying on the notice-format guidance in this article.