Regulon — IL-HB-4980 · IL HB 4980 (Human Control of AI Act)

2026-02-04 introduced Filed with the Clerk by Rep. Abdelnasser Rashid

2026-02-06 introduced First Reading

2026-02-06 committee referral Referred to Rules Committee

2026-02-25 Added Chief Co-Sponsor Rep. Patrick Sheehan

2026-02-25 Added Chief Co-Sponsor Rep. Stephanie A. Kifowit

2026-02-25 Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Diane Blair-Sherlock

2026-02-25 Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Michael Crawford

2026-02-25 Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Lisa Davis

2026-02-25 Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Aarón M. Ortíz

2026-02-25 Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Lilian Jiménez

2026-02-25 Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Ann M. Williams

2026-02-25 Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Dagmara Avelar

2026-02-25 Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Maura Hirschauer

2026-02-25 Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Janet Yang Rohr

2026-02-25 Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Jehan Gordon-Booth

2026-02-25 Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Edgar González, Jr.

2026-02-26 Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Maurice A. West, II

2026-02-26 Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Nicolle Grasse

2026-02-26 Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Will Guzzardi

2026-02-26 Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Kelly M. Cassidy

2026-03-04 committee referral Assigned to Labor & Commerce Committee

2026-03-09 introduced House Committee Amendment No. 1 Filed with Clerk by Rep. Abdelnasser Rashid

2026-03-09 committee referral House Committee Amendment No. 1 Referred to Rules Committee

2026-03-09 Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Jaime M. Andrade, Jr.

2026-03-18 House Committee Amendment No. 1 Rules Refers to Labor & Commerce Committee House Committee Amendment No. 1 Rules Refers to Labor & Commerce Committee

2026-03-19 committee passage Do Pass as Amended / Short Debate Labor & Commerce Committee; 018-009-000

2026-03-19 Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Nabeela Syed

2026-03-19 Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Joyce Mason

2026-03-19 Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Gregg Johnson

2026-03-19 Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Anne Stava

2026-03-19 House Committee Amendment No. 1 Adopted in Labor & Commerce Committee; by Voice Vote House Committee Amendment No. 1 Adopted in Labor & Commerce Committee; by Voice Vote

2026-03-20 Placed on Calendar 2nd Reading - Short Debate Placed on Calendar 2nd Reading - Short Debate

2026-04-10 Second Reading - Short Debate Second Reading - Short Debate

2026-04-10 Held on Calendar Order of Second Reading - Short Debate Held on Calendar Order of Second Reading - Short Debate

2026-04-17 Rule 19(a) / Re-referred to Rules Committee Rule 19(a) / Re-referred to Rules Committee

Summary

Requires public employers (including contractors and subcontractors) in Illinois to maintain meaningful and continuing human review when using automated decision-making systems for public assistance administration, employee-affecting decisions, or functions implicating statutory or constitutional rights. Prohibits use of such systems for predictive behavioral profiling, wage deductions for exercising legal rights, employment-related decisions, and biometric recognition technologies. Mandates initial and biennial independent impact assessments covering bias, discrimination, privacy, cybersecurity, and safety, with results submitted to government leadership and published on employer websites. Includes anti-retaliation protections for employees who refuse to follow AI outputs in specified circumstances. Enforced by the Department of Labor with a $5,000 civil penalty per violation and a private right of action with liquidated damages, compensatory damages, up to $500 per violation, and attorney's fees.

Enforcement & Penalties

Enforcement Authority

The Department of Labor has primary enforcement authority, including the power to investigate complaints, conduct inspections, issue cease-and-desist orders, and assess civil penalties. Complaints may be filed by any interested party (defined as an employee with an interest in compliance or an exclusive bargaining representative) within 180 days of an alleged violation. The Department must notify the employer within 120 days of filing. The Director may compel testimony and production of records by subpoena. A private right of action is also available: any interested party or aggrieved employee may bring suit in circuit court without exhausting administrative remedies. Class-style actions are permitted on behalf of similarly situated interested parties.

Penalties

Department enforcement: $5,000 civil penalty per violation, plus affirmative relief including rehiring, reinstatement, and back pay. Private right of action: (i) lost wages, salary, employment benefits, or other compensation denied or lost by reason of the violation, plus an equal amount in liquidated damages; (ii) compensatory damages and up to $500 for each violation; (iii) in retaliation cases, all legal or equitable relief as may be appropriate; and (iv) attorney's fees and costs. Statutory damages of $500 per violation do not require proof of actual monetary harm.

Who Is Covered

"Employer" means a public body or any entity acting on behalf of a public body, including, but not limited to, contractors and subcontractors.

"Employee" means any person employed by a public body, State agency, or any entity acting on behalf of a State agency, including, but not limited to, contractors and subcontractors.

"Interested party" means an employee with an interest in compliance with this Act, or an exclusive bargaining representative of an employee.

What Is Covered

"Automated decision-making system" means any software that uses algorithms, computational models, or artificial intelligence techniques, or a combination thereof, to automate, support, or replace human decision-making, without any meaningful human review, including, without limitation, systems that process data and apply predefined rules or machine learning algorithms to analyze the data and generate conclusions, recommendations, outcomes, assumptions, projections, or predictions. "Automated decision-making system" does not include any software used primarily for basic computerized processes, such as calculators, spellcheck tools, autocorrect functions, spreadsheets, electronic communications, or any tool that relates only to internal management affairs, such as inventory control and ordering or processing payments, that does not adversely affect the rights, liberties, benefits, safety, or welfare of any individual in this State.

Compliance Obligations 11 obligations · click obligation ID to open requirement page

H-01 Human Oversight of Automated Decisions · H-01.6 · Government · Government SystemEmploymentAutomated Decisionmaking

Section 10(a)

Plain Language

Public employers may not use, procure, or acquire any automated decision-making system without meaningful and continuing human review when the system performs functions related to public assistance administration, employee rights or welfare, or constitutionally or statutorily protected employee rights. 'Meaningful human review' is a demanding standard — the human reviewer must understand the system's risks and limitations, be trained on it, have authority and obligation to intervene or reject uncorroborated outputs, and have adequate time and resources. This is not rubber-stamp oversight; the reviewer must exercise independent judgment and consider information beyond what the system collected.

Statutory Text

(a) An employer shall not use or apply, or authorize any procurement, purchase, or acquisition of any service or system using or relying on any automated decision-making system, directly or indirectly, without meaningful and continuing human review when performing any function that: (1) is related to the administration of any public assistance program; (2) will have an adverse impact on the rights, civil liberties, safety, or welfare of any employee in this State; or (3) affects any statutorily or constitutionally provided rights of an employee.

H-01 Human Oversight of Automated Decisions · H-01.3 H-01.4 H-01.5 · Government · Government SystemEmploymentAutomated Decisionmaking

Section 10(b)

Plain Language

When an automated decision-making system is used for any function described in Section 10(a), the employer must: (1) notify the affected employee at or before the time the decision is issued that the decision was made using an automated system; (2) provide an appeals process for employees directly impacted; and (3) offer the employee an alternative review by a human reviewer who is independent of the automated system. These three protections are preconditions to any use of an ADMS in the covered contexts — without them, the use is prohibited.

Statutory Text

(b) An employer shall not use or apply any automated decision-making system, directly or indirectly, to perform any function described in subsection (a) without providing: (1) a notice to any affected employee no later than the time a decision is issued to that employee that a decision concerning the employee was made using an automated decision-making system; (2) an appeals process for decisions made by automated decision-making system in which an employee is impacted as a direct result of the use of the automated decision-making system; and (3) the opportunity for an affected employee to have an appropriate alternative review, by an individual working for or on behalf of the employer with respect to the decision, independent of the automated decision-making system.

Other · Government · Government SystemEmploymentAutomated DecisionmakingBiometrics

Section 10(c)

Plain Language

Public employers are categorically prohibited from using automated decision-making systems in four contexts: (1) predicting employees' or candidates' behavior, beliefs, personality, emotional state, or similar characteristics; (2) deducting wages for time employees spend exercising legal rights; (3) any employment-related decision (hiring, firing, promotion, discipline, work assignment, productivity requirements, workplace safety, or any other term or condition of employment) for employees, candidates, independent contractors, subcontractors, or interns; and (4) any use involving facial recognition, gait recognition, or emotion recognition. These are absolute prohibitions — no amount of human review or impact assessment permits these uses.

Statutory Text

(c) An employer shall not use or apply any automated decision-making system, directly or indirectly: (1) to make predictions about an employee's or employment candidate's behavior, beliefs, intentions, personality, emotional state, or other characteristics or behaviors; (2) to subtract from an employee's wages for time spent exercising the employee's legal rights; (3) in relation to performance evaluation, hiring, recruitment, discipline, promotion, termination, duties, assignment of work, access to work opportunities, productivity requirements, workplace health and safety, or other terms or conditions of employment for any persons classified as employees, candidates for employment, independent contractors, subcontractors, or interns; or (4) that involves facial recognition, gait recognition, or emotion recognition technologies.

Other · Government SystemEmploymentAutomated Decisionmaking

Section 10(d)

Plain Language

The deployment of an automated decision-making system may not diminish or alter existing collective bargaining rights or representational relationships. This is a savings clause confirming that ADMS deployment does not override existing labor agreements — it creates no new independent compliance obligation.

Statutory Text

(d) The use of an automated decision-making system shall not affect: (1) existing rights of employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement; or (2) existing representational relationships among labor organizations or bargaining relationships between an employer and a labor organization.

Other · Government · Government SystemEmploymentAutomated Decisionmaking

Section 10(e)

Plain Language

Before procuring or deploying any ADMS, the employer must give prior notice to the relevant labor organization and negotiate with exclusive bargaining representatives. Additionally, ADMS deployment must not result in employee discharge, displacement, reduction in hours or wages, transfer of current or future employee duties to the system, or any negative impact on existing employee rights, benefits, civil service status, or collective bargaining membership. This creates both a procedural prerequisite (bargaining) and substantive anti-displacement protections.

Statutory Text

(e) The procurement, purchase, acquisition, or use of an automated decision-making system shall not occur without prior notice to a labor organization and negotiations between the employer and any exclusive representatives of potentially affected employees and shall not result in: (1) discharge, displacement, or loss of position, including partial displacement, such as a reduction in hours, wages, or other employment benefits; (2) transfer of existing duties and functions currently performed by employees to an automated decision-making system; (3) transfer of future duties and functions ordinarily performed by employees to an automated decision-making system; or (4) any negative impact on the rights, benefits, and privileges of all existing employees, including terms and conditions of employment, civil service status, and collective bargaining unit membership, which shall be preserved and protected.

D-01 Automated Processing Rights & Data Controls · D-01.1 · Government · Government SystemEmploymentAutomated Decisionmaking

Section 10(f)

Plain Language

When an ADMS collects data about employees, those employees and their exclusive bargaining representatives have the right to view the collected data. This is a data access right — the employer must make the collected data available upon request. This goes beyond mere notice of data use and requires actual disclosure of the data itself.

Statutory Text

(f) If an automated decision-making system is collecting employee data, employees and their exclusive bargaining representatives have a right to view the data collected by the automated decision-making system.

H-02 Non-Discrimination & Bias Assessment · H-02.3 H-02.6 H-02.8 · Government · Government SystemEmploymentAutomated Decisionmaking

Section 15(a)-(b)

Plain Language

Before deploying any permitted ADMS, the employer must complete an initial impact assessment at least 30 days before implementation, signed by both the designated human reviewer and a qualified independent auditor. The auditor independence requirement is strict: anyone who in the prior 5 years was involved in developing, deploying, or licensing the system, had an employment relationship with the developer/deployer, or had a direct or material indirect financial interest in such entities is disqualified. After the initial assessment, subsequent assessments must be conducted at least every 2 years and before any material changes. Each assessment must cover, in plain language: system objectives and their achievability; algorithm and training descriptions; testing for disparate impact across a detailed list of protected characteristics, accessibility limitations, privacy and job quality impacts, cybersecurity vulnerabilities, public health/safety risks, foreseeable misuse, and sensitive data handling; and an employee notification mechanism.

Statutory Text

(a) An employer seeking to use or apply an automated decision-making system permitted under Section 10 shall conduct an initial impact assessment, 30 days prior to implementation of the automated decision-making system, bearing the signature of: (1) one or more individuals responsible for meaningful human review of the system; and (2) an independent auditor. A person shall not be an independent auditor under this subsection if, at any point in the 5 years preceding the impact assessment, that person: (i) was involved in using, developing, offering, licensing, or deploying the automated decision-making system under review; (ii) had an employment relationship with a developer or deployer that uses, offers, or licenses the automated decision-making system under review; or (iii) had a direct or material indirect financial interest in a developer or deployer that uses, offers, or licenses the automated decision-making system under review. (b) Following the initial impact assessment, additional impact assessments shall be conducted at least once every 2 years and prior to any material changes to the automated decision-making system. Each impact assessment shall include, in plain language: (1) a description of the objectives of the automated decision-making system; (2) an evaluation of the system's ability to achieve those objectives; (3) a description and evaluation of the algorithms, computational models, and artificial intelligence tools used, including: (A) a summary of underlying algorithms and artificial intelligence tools; and (B) a description of the design and training to be used; (4) testing for: (A) disparate impact or discrimination based on protected characteristics, including, but not limited to discriminating against, persons based on their race, color, religious creed, national origin, sex, disability or perceived disability, gender identity, sexual orientation, genetic information, pregnancy or a condition related to pregnancy, ancestry, or status as a veteran and any actions to mitigate any impacts; (B) accessibility limitations for persons with disabilities; (C) privacy and job quality impacts, including wages, hours, and conditions and safeguards; (D) cybersecurity vulnerabilities and safeguards; (E) public health or safety risks; (F) foreseeable misuse and safeguards; and (G) use, storage, and control of sensitive or personal data; and (5) a notification mechanism for employees impacted by the use of the automated decision-making system.

H-02 Non-Discrimination & Bias Assessment · Government · Government SystemEmploymentAutomated Decisionmaking

Section 15(c)

Plain Language

If an impact assessment reveals that the ADMS produces discriminatory, biased, or inaccurate outcomes — or fails to meet the notice, appeals, and alternative review requirements of Section 10(b) — the employer must immediately stop using the system and all information it produced, and must take all steps necessary to remedy the harmful outcomes. This is a mandatory shutdown-and-remediate obligation triggered by assessment findings. There is no grace period or cure window — cessation must be immediate.

Statutory Text

(c) If an impact assessment finds that an automated decision-making system produces discriminatory, biased, or inaccurate outcomes or fails to meet or negatively impacts any of the measures described in subsection (b) of Section 10, the employer shall immediately cease any use or function of that system and of any information produced by it, and shall take all steps necessary to remedy the discriminatory, biased or inaccurate outcomes produced by the automated decision-making system.

H-02 Non-Discrimination & Bias Assessment · H-02.5 · Government · Government SystemEmploymentAutomated Decisionmaking

Section 15(d)-(e)

Plain Language

Employers must notify all affected employees and their exclusive bargaining representatives of each impact assessment's results, and must provide a copy of the full assessment upon request. Additionally, each impact assessment must be published on the employer's website, subject to the redaction limitations described in Section 20. This dual disclosure obligation — direct employee notification plus public website publication — ensures transparency to both workers and the public.

Statutory Text

(d) The employer shall notify affected employees and any exclusive bargaining representative, the results of each impact assessment, and provide a copy of the impact assessment upon request. (e) Each impact assessment shall be published on the employer's website, subject to the limitations set forth in Section 20.

R-02 Regulatory Disclosure & Submissions · R-02.1 · Government · Government SystemEmploymentAutomated Decisionmaking

Section 20(a)-(c)

Plain Language

State agencies must submit each impact assessment to the Governor and General Assembly at least 30 days before deploying the assessed system. Other public bodies must submit to their director or primary administrator on the same timeline. Two redaction exceptions apply: (1) if disclosure would substantially harm public health/safety, infringe privacy, or impair IT security, the information may be redacted; and (2) if the assessment covers security/fraud/identity-theft technology, related information may be redacted. In both cases, the redacted assessment must be accompanied by a published explanatory statement describing the redaction rationale. This is a proactive submission requirement — the employer cannot wait to be asked.

Statutory Text

(a) Each impact assessment conducted by a State agency under this Act shall be submitted to the Governor and the General Assembly at least 30 days prior to implementation of the automated decision-making system that is the subject of the assessment. Each impact assessment conducted by any other public body under this Act shall be submitted to the director of the public body or the executive officers or primary administrator of the relevant governing body at least 30 days prior to implementation of the automated decision-making system that is the subject of the assessment. (b) If the employer determines that disclosure of any information in the impact assessment would result in a substantial negative impact on public health or safety, infringe upon privacy rights, or significantly impair the employer's ability to protect its information technology or operational assets, the information may be redacted, if an explanatory statement describing the determination process for redaction is published along with the redacted assessment. (c) If the impact assessment covers technology used to prevent, detect, protect against, or respond to security incidents, identity theft, fraud, harassment, or other illegal activity, the employer may redact related information, if an explanatory statement describing the determination process for redaction is published along with the redacted assessment.

G-03 Whistleblower & Anti-Retaliation Protections · G-03.3 · Government · Government SystemEmploymentAutomated Decisionmaking

Section 25

Plain Language

Employees are protected from termination, discipline, retaliation, or other adverse employment action when they refuse to follow an ADMS output, provided all five conditions are met: (1) the employee exercises independent professional judgment or holds state licensure/certification; (2) the employee has notified a supervisor that the output may cause harm, illegality, or counterproductive outcomes and the employer failed to correct it; (3) the employee is engaging in concerted activity for mutual aid and protection; (4) the refusal is made in good faith based on professional training, education, or experience; and (5) urgency prevents waiting for the employer to correct the output. All five conditions must be satisfied — this is a conjunctive test, not a list of alternative triggers.

Statutory Text

An employee shall be protected from termination, disciplinary action, retaliation, or other adverse employment action for refusing to follow the output of an automated decision-making system if: (1) the employee exercises independent judgment and discretion in the employee's duties, or the employee's duties require State licensure, certification, or accreditation; (2) the employee notifies a supervisor or manager that the system's output may, in the employee's professional opinion, lead to harm, illegality, or an outcome contrary to the employer's goals, and the employer fails to correct the output; (3) the employee is engaging in concerted activity for the purpose of mutual aid and protection; (4) the employee refuses to follow the output in good faith based on training, education, or experience; and (5) due to urgency, there is insufficient time for correction.