Illinois has emerged as a national leader in regulating the use of artificial intelligence (“AI”) in employment decisions, particularly in hiring and recruitment. Recent amendments and expansions to Illinois law significantly restrict how employers may use AI-driven tools, especially those that analyze video interviews, facial expressions, voice patterns, or other biometric-adjacent data, to evaluate job applicants. These developments reflect growing concern that AI systems may perpetuate bias, operate without transparency, and expose employers to heightened legal risk.

At the center of Illinois’s approach is the Artificial Intelligence Video Interview Act, which requires employers to provide advance notice and obtain informed consent before using AI to evaluate video interviews. Employers must disclose how the AI works in general terms, explain the characteristics it evaluates, and limit the sharing and retention of recorded interview data. Amendments have further tightened compliance obligations by requiring deletion of interview materials within a defined timeframe and restricting who may access the data. Failure to comply can expose employers to statutory penalties and reputational harm.

More broadly, Illinois lawmakers have signaled skepticism toward automated decision-making tools that meaningfully influence employment outcomes. The legislative intent is clear: employers cannot rely on “black box” technology to screen candidates without human oversight, transparency, and accountability. These laws are designed to ensure that hiring decisions remain fair, explainable, and compliant with existing anti-discrimination statutes, including Title VII and analogous state laws.

Although these restrictions apply directly to Illinois employers, their impact extends well beyond the state’s borders. Many employers operate nationally and use centralized hiring platforms that do not vary by jurisdiction. As a result, companies may find it impractical to maintain separate AI-driven hiring processes for Illinois applicants versus candidates elsewhere. For many multistate employers, the most efficient approach will be to adopt Illinois-compliant practices across the board.

Illinois’s actions also reflect a broader national trend. Federal agencies, including the EEOC and the Department of Labor, have issued guidance warning that AI-based hiring tools may create disparate impact liability if they disproportionately exclude protected groups. Other states and municipalities are actively considering similar legislation, and New York City has already enacted laws requiring bias audits of automated employment decision tools. Illinois’s framework may therefore serve as a model for future regulation nationwide.

In light of these developments, employers should carefully audit their use of AI in recruitment and hiring. This includes reviewing vendor contracts, understanding how AI tools evaluate candidates, ensuring meaningful human involvement in decision-making, and updating applicant notices and consent procedures. While AI can offer efficiency and scalability, Illinois’s regulatory approach underscores a clear message: innovation in hiring must be balanced with transparency, fairness, and legal compliance.