Candidate AI Notice and Consent

Candidate AI notice and consent refers to telling job applicants that an automated or AI-driven tool is being used somewhere in the hiring process, and in some jurisdictions, obtaining their agreement before that tool is applied to their application.

The requirement exists because candidates can't meaningfully contest a decision they don't know was partly automated. Several jurisdictions now treat the notice itself, separate from the audit, as a distinct compliance obligation.

What Does the Notice Actually Need to Say?

At minimum, a compliant notice names the fact that an automated employment decision tool is in use, describes in plain language what it evaluates, and tells the candidate how to request an alternative process or accommodation.

Under NYC Local Law 144, that notice must go out at least 10 business days before the tool is used, along with published bias-audit results.

When Is Consent Required Versus Just Notice?

Notice-only regimes let hiring proceed once the candidate has been informed. Consent regimes go further and require the candidate's affirmative agreement before the tool touches their data, closer to how healthcare or financial consent works.

Most current U.S. state rules, including Colorado's approach, lean toward notice and disclosure rather than opt-in consent, though this is an area still actively evolving.

How Is This Different From an AI Transparency Notice?

A transparency notice is the broader, often public-facing disclosure that a company uses AI somewhere in its operations. Candidate AI notice and consent is narrower and applicant-specific: it's delivered directly to the person whose application will be evaluated, at a specific point in the hiring funnel.

What Happens If a Candidate Isn't Given Proper Notice?

Depending on the jurisdiction, a missed or late notice can trigger a complaint to the relevant enforcement agency, independent of whether the underlying AI tool itself was biased. The notice failure is treated as its own violation, not just evidence toward a discrimination claim.

That separation matters operationally: a hiring team can pass every bias audit and still be out of compliance simply because the notice went out on day 8 of a required 10-business-day window.

Building the notice trigger directly into the applicant tracking workflow, rather than relying on someone to remember it manually for each requisition, is how most compliant teams avoid missing that window across every new hiring round.

What Should HR Do If a Candidate Requests an Alternative Process?

Most frameworks that require candidate notice also expect employers to offer a reasonable alternative evaluation method on request, such as a manual review instead of the automated tool.

Having that alternative process defined and documented ahead of time, rather than improvising one when the first request arrives, keeps the response fast and consistent across candidates and reviewers.

Discover how our HR solutions streamline onboarding, boost employee engagement, and simplify HR management

Request a Demo

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Is candidate AI notice legally required?

A: Yes, in a growing number of jurisdictions, most notably under NYC Local Law 144 for automated employment decision tools.

Q: How far in advance must notice be given?

A: NYC requires at least 10 business days before the tool is used on that candidate.

Q: Does notice require the candidate's active consent?

A: Not always. Many current laws require disclosure rather than opt-in agreement, though this varies by jurisdiction.

Q: What happens if a candidate objects?

A: Most frameworks require employers to offer an alternative evaluation process or accommodation on request.

Q: Does this apply to internal promotion decisions too?

A: It can, depending on how the applicable law defines an automated employment decision tool.

Q: Who drafts the notice language?

A: Typically HR and legal jointly, since it must match both the specific tool's function and the applicable statute's wording requirements.