A recent report by The Wall Street Journal highlights that a significant number of companies in the city are overlooking a six-month-old law requiring them to disclose the impact of algorithms on hiring and promotion decisions. According to a study by Cornell University, only 18 out of 400 companies utilizing “automated employment decision tools” have published results on their websites as mandated by Local Law 144.
Local Law 144, enacted to address concerns of potential bias in technology-driven employment decisions, was designed to encourage companies to assess whether their algorithms unintentionally exhibit bias. However, the low compliance rate suggests that the law is not having the intended impact on the majority of employers.
The Cornell University study points out that the wording of the law may be a contributing factor to the lack of adherence. One researcher, who participated in the study, argued that the law provides employers with “almost unlimited discretion” when deciding whether they are complying with the regulation or not.
Advocates of algorithmic transparency in employment processes argue that it is crucial to identify and rectify any biases that may exist in automated decision-making systems. These systems often rely on historical data, which can perpetuate existing inequalities and result in biased outcomes.
The low compliance rate raises questions about the effectiveness of Local Law 144 and whether it provides sufficient guidance for companies to meet its objectives. Critics argue that without clearer guidelines and more stringent enforcement, the law may not succeed in its mission to promote fairness and accountability in algorithmic hiring and promotion practices.
As the debate surrounding the impact of algorithms on employment decisions continues, the city may face pressure to revisit and potentially revise the legislation to ensure companies take proactive measures to address any biases in their automated systems.
Source: Linkedin
Featured News
Clifford Chance Expands Global Antitrust Team with New Partner
Dec 6, 2024 by
CPI
Spain’s Financial Regulator Awaits Antitrust Decision on BBVA’s Hostile Bid for Sabadell
Dec 5, 2024 by
CPI
RealPage Seeks Dismissal of DOJ Antitrust Suit, Citing Legal Flaws
Dec 5, 2024 by
CPI
EU Competition Chief Signals Potential Google Breakup Amid Big Tech Scrutiny
Dec 5, 2024 by
CPI
Turkey Closes Antitrust Probe into Meta’s Threads-Instagram Practices
Dec 5, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Moats & Entrenchment
Nov 29, 2024 by
CPI
Assessing the Potential for Antitrust Moats and Trenches in the Generative AI Industry
Nov 29, 2024 by
Allison Holt, Sushrut Jain & Ashley Zhou
How SEP Hold-up Can Lead to Entrenchment
Nov 29, 2024 by
Jay Jurata, Elena Kamenir & Christie Boyden
The Role of Moats in Unlocking Economic Growth
Nov 29, 2024 by
CPI
Overcoming Moats and Entrenchment: Disruptive Innovation in Generative AI May Be More Successful than Regulation
Nov 29, 2024 by
Simon Chisholm & Charlie Whitehead