In one paragraph
New Jersey's S 4279 (as introduced) would bar a covered entity (lender, housing provider, screening company, creditor, servicer, insurer or their agents) from using an automated decision system in housing or credit decisions in a way that results in a disparate impact on a protected class, a violation of the Law Against Discrimination. It would require impact assessments at least every two years, notice and human review on request, and would let the Division on Civil Rights or Attorney General impose fines of at least $5,000 for certain violations. Introduced May 14, 2026 and referred to the Senate Commerce Committee; not passed.
Plain-English summary, written with AI assistance. The official text controls.
What it means for business
None yet: the bill has not been enacted. If enacted, lenders, landlords, screening companies and insurers using automated systems for housing or credit decisions would face disparate-impact liability, assessments, notices and fines.
Key provisions
- Covered entities and their agents, third-party vendors, model developers or external data sources could not use an automated decision system in housing, mortgage, rental or related financial decisions in a way that has a disparate impact on a protected class; this would violate the Law Against Discrimination
- An aggrieved individual could sue in Superior Court by proving disparate impact; a covered entity would have an affirmative defense if the use serves a substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory purpose and no less discriminatory alternative is available
- A covered entity would be liable for the actions of its agent, vendor, model developer or external data source
- Algorithmic impact assessments would be required at reasonable intervals and at least every two years, with records available to the Division on Civil Rights or Attorney General; no disclosure of source code or trade secrets required; the Division on Civil Rights or Attorney General could impose a fine of not less than $5,000 for violations
- Covered entities would have to give clear notice when an automated decision system is used in a housing or credit decision and honor requests for meaningful human review; the Division or Attorney General could impose a fine of not less than $5,000 for failing either duty
- Violations of the bill's ban would also carry the penalties under P.L.1983, c.412 (C.10:5-14.1a); would take effect 30 days after enactment
- Status: introduced and referred to the Senate Commerce Committee on May 14, 2026; not passed by either chamber
Latest legislative action
May 14, 2026. Introduced in the Senate, Referred to Senate Commerce Committee
Sponsors
| Name | Role | District |
|---|---|---|
| Troy Singleton D | Sponsor | SD-007 |
Topics and industries
Related topics
Affected industries
This page is general information, not legal advice. Summaries are AI-assisted and may contain errors; read the statute for the controlling text and talk to a lawyer about your situation. Full disclaimer · Report an error