New York’s AI Labor Information Act: Has Hochul Signed It?
As of October 4, 2026, New York’s bill record shows no Hochul signature. See who would report AI workforce impacts and how this differs from NYC rules.
As of October 4, 2026, New York’s official legislative record shows the AI Labor Information Act as passed by both chambers—not signed by Governor Kathy Hochul. The Assembly passed A9581B on June 3, and the Senate passed it on June 4. The action history does not yet show delivery to the governor or a signature. Employers should therefore treat its reporting requirements as proposed obligations, not an active filing duty. Official bill status and actions
The bill, whose Senate companion is S8706B, would collect employer estimates of AI-related job losses, hiring, changes in hours and decisions not to refill positions. It is a workforce-reporting measure, not a ban on AI hiring tools. S8706B text
Why Hinchey, Bronson and unions are pressing Hochul
Senator Michelle Hinchey, Assembly Labor Chair Harry Bronson and labor leaders from the AFL-CIO, Communications Workers of America and Teamsters have called on Hochul to sign the measure. Their stated aim is to create recurring data that can inform retraining, workforce development and future protections. That is the sponsors’ policy case—not proof that AI caused any particular layoff. Coalition announcement
The distinction matters: the bill asks employers to estimate employment changes caused “in full or in part” by AI. It would capture employers’ reported attribution, rather than independently establish causation. S8706B, reporting provisions
Which employers would have to report?
The passed B version defines a covered business as a business entity doing business in New York that either:
- Employs more than 50 people; or
- Is a publicly traded entity, regardless of that employee threshold.
“More than 50” is not “50 or more.” A non-public business with exactly 50 employees would not meet the headcount threshold. The text also does not say “more than 50 New York employees,” so HR should not assume the threshold counts only in-state staff. Confirm the entity and headcount interpretation with counsel if enacted. S8706B, subdivision 1
What would the annual report contain?
Reports would go to the New York State Department of Labor by March 1, covering the calendar year ending the preceding December 31. Required information would include:
| Reporting area | Information the bill requests |
|---|---|
| Displacement and reduced hours | Estimated number of employees displaced or whose hours decreased because of AI, wholly or partly |
| Hiring and increased hours | Estimated number hired or whose hours increased because of AI, wholly or partly |
| Unfilled positions | Estimated number of previously filled positions the business decided not to refill because of AI |
| AI use | Objectives, frequency and length of use, and information about human oversight |
| Data and safeguards | AI use involving sensitive personal data, storage and access protections, and oversight or risk-reduction measures |
These are not exhaustive categories: the bill authorizes the department to develop additional reporting requirements and requires it to create standard forms and submission processes. S8706B, subdivisions 2–3
The passed text would take effect immediately. If enacted during 2026 without changes, its annual schedule would point to March 1, 2027, for reporting on 2026. That is a conditional planning date, not a currently enforceable deadline. Failure to report could bring civil penalties of up to $500 per day. After notice, businesses would have 90 days to cure; if the commissioner is satisfied the violation was cured within that period, the commissioner must waive or reduce the applicable penalties. S8706B, enforcement and effective-date provisions
What candidates would—and would not—get
The department would publish an annual report presenting aggregate data, including analysis by employment sector, geographic location and business size. The bill does not promise applicants a public employer-by-employer database, their individual screening score, an appeal of a rejection or a human interview. Reporting information about human oversight is not the same as requiring human review of every employment decision. S8706B, subdivisions 2–4
Do not confuse this statewide proposal with New York City Local Law 144. For covered automated employment decision tools, that city law already requires a bias audit within one year of use, public audit information and specified notices. Enforcement began July 5, 2023. Those duties are separate from the proposed state workforce report. NYC Department of Consumer and Worker Protection
What HR can prepare now
Preparation should focus on records, not an assumed filing form:
- Inventory AI uses across the business, not just recruiting. Record objectives, deployment dates, human oversight and data safeguards.
- Document staffing decisions when they happen. Distinguish AI-related layoffs, reduced hours, hiring and non-backfilled vacancies from unrelated budget changes.
- Keep the basis for estimates. For example, if an AI deployment contributes to leaving a vacant role unfilled, retain the decision record rather than trying to reconstruct the reason months later.
- Keep existing hiring compliance separate. A workforce-impact report would not replace tool validation, candidate notices or applicable bias-audit duties. Use the AI hiring vendor validation checklist for those distinct checks.
Informational only, not legal or employment advice. Confirm enactment, any amendments and implementation requirements with qualified counsel before relying on a reporting deadline.