TOPIC INTELLIGENCE

Bias Audits

Explore verified audit rules and editorial coverage distinguishing mandatory bias audits from testing, impact assessments and ongoing monitoring.

Coverage scope

  • Mandatory audits and covered tools
  • Testing versus statutory audit duties
  • Audit timing and published information
  • Limits of audits as evidence of compliance

CURRENT COVERAGE

3 records · 3 articles

Relevant jurisdictions: New York.

REGULATORY RECORDS

Did not become law in 2026bill

Connecticut SB 435 — Automated Decision Systems Protections for Employees

SB 435 proposed a broader employment automated-decision framework, including explanations, data correction, human review, bias audits, recordkeeping, collective-bargaining provisions, and a civil action. The official history ends with an April 20, 2026 favorable report and Senate calendar placement; the regular session adjourned May 6 without enactment.

Related coverage: Connecticut’s AI Employment Law Is Now Partly in Effect: What Employers Need to Know →

LATEST COVERAGE

Explainer

NY · CO · CA · IL · MD · MA · NJ

AI Bias Audits: One-Time Compliance or Continuous Monitoring?

Current law does not impose one universal monitoring model. New York City uses a rolling one-year audit rule; other regimes rely on discrimination law, notices, records, documentation, or human review—and governance programs often go further.