On August 9, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker signed HB 3773 into law. The bill, which goes into effect January 1, 2026, amends the Illinois Human Rights Act to regulate the use of artificial intelligence in certain employment settings. In the below article, we provide a summary of the law and its provisions.

In general, the Illinois Human Rights Act makes it a civil rights violation for employers, employment agencies, and labor organizations to engage in certain activities. For example, employers cannot refuse to hire or promote an employee or applicant on the basis of various protected classes, including, for example, race, color, religion, sex, national origin, ancestry, age, order of protection status, marital status, physical or mental disability, military status, sexual orientation, pregnancy, citizenship status, work authorization status, or unfavorable discharge from military service in connection with employment, real estate transactions, access to financial credit, and the availability of public accommodations.

HB 3773, which goes into effect on January 1, 2026, adds to the list of prohibited activities by prohibiting employers from using artificial intelligence that “has the effect of subjecting employees to discrimination on the basis of protected classes under [the Illinois Human Rights Act] or to use zip codes as a proxy for protected classes under” the Illinois Human Rights Act specifically with respect to “recruitment, hiring, promotion, renewal of employment, selection for training or apprenticeship, discharge, discipline, tenure, or the terms, privileges, or conditions of employment.”

Put more plainly, the law makes it a civil rights violation for an employer to use artificial intelligence that results in unlawful discrimination. The bill also makes it a civil rights violation for an “employer to fail to provide notice to an employee that the employer is using artificial intelligence” for these purposes. Although the bill does not explicitly apply to “job applicants,” the Illinois Human Rights Act has previously applied to applicants in other contexts and the bill’s reference to “recruitment” and “hiring” suggests that applicants will also be covered by the new artificial intelligence prohibitions.

The bill defines “artificial intelligence” to mean “a machine-based system that, for explicit or implicit objectives, infers, from the input it receives, how to generate outputs such as predictions, content, recommendations, or decisions that can influence physical or virtual environments.” This definition is very similar to the Colorado AI Act’s definition of “artificial intelligence system” which is defined as “any machine-based system that, for any explicit or implicit objective, infers from the inputs the system receives how to generate outputs, including content, decisions, predictions, or recommendations, that can influence physical or virtual environments.”

The Illinois definition of artificial intelligence also includes “generative artificial intelligence” which is separately defined as “an automated computing system that, when prompted with human prompts, descriptions, or queries, can produce outputs that simulate human-produced content, including, but not limited to, the following: (1) textual outputs, such as short answers, essays, poetry, or longer composition answers; (2) image outputs, such as fine art, photographs, conceptual art, diagrams, and other images; (3) multimedia outputs, such as audio or video in the form of compositions, songs, or short-form or long-form audio or video; and (4) other content that would be otherwise produced by human means.”

Finally, the bill charges the Illinois Department of Human Rights with adopting any “rules necessary for the implementation and enforcement of” the amendment, including “rules on the circumstances and conditions that require notice, the time period for providing notice, and the means for providing notice.”

The law is enforced through the Illinois Department of Human Rights and Illinois Human Rights Commission. Employees who believe their civil rights have been violated under the Act can file a charge with the Department which initially investigates the charge’s allegations. Subsequently, the alleged violation can be litigated before the Commission or in state or federal court. According to the Department of Human Rights, “[r]emedies may include back pay, lost benefits, clearing of personnel file, emotional damages, hiring, promotion, reinstatement, front pay where reinstatement is not possible, and attorney’s fees and costs.”

Although the amendment is brief, compliance with its requirement may prove complex. For example, the law’s definition of “artificial intelligence” is broad and does not include exemptions such as those found in the Colorado AI Act. The law also focuses on the outcome of the use of artificial intelligence and not the intent insofar as the law states that the use of artificial intelligence “has the effect of subjecting employees to discrimination” – in which case, it would prohibit a disparate (i.e., disproportionate) impact on protected classes even if there is no discriminatory motive. Further, while the law does not specifically require a risk management policy and program, impact assessments or bias audits – which are required under other laws like the Colorado AI Act and/or New York Local Law 144 – companies may still need to engage in such activities in order to identify when they are using artificial intelligence and to ensure it does not lead to discrimination.

The Illinois law also is significant because it demonstrates the continuing effort by states to enact legislation regulating the use of artificial intelligence in high-risk processing activities. In fact, HB 3773 is the second Illinois law that regulates the use of AI in the workplace. In 2019, Illinois also enacted the Artificial Intelligence Video Interview Act, which requires employers who use AI in video interviews to provide notice and certain disclosures regarding such use.

[View source.]