Skip to content

Session Expired

Your session has expired. Please sign in again to continue where you left off.

Sign In Again

NY A09641: Prohibits algorithmic wage-setting; provides for exceptions; provides for penalties for violation; creates a private right of action.

In Committee New York

Last verified Oct 12, 2026 · official bill text

A09641 · where it stands

1 of 5 steps complete
  1. Introduced In committee
  2. Passed first chamber
  3. Passed both chambers
  4. Enacted
  5. Effective
What do these statuses mean?
Introduced
Filed in the legislature; may be waiting for a committee hearing.
Passed a chamber
Approved by one or both chambers; awaiting further action.
Enacted
Signed into law, or became law without a signature or over a veto.
Effective date
The date the law says it takes effect. Once it has passed, the page shows "Effective" and the date. A court order can still block a law; if we know of one, the summary says so.
Dead / vetoed
Vetoed, failed, or the session ended without action.

In one paragraph

New York's A 9641 would add Labor Law Article 20-D (§§ 750-755) providing that “no employer shall engage in algorithmic wage-setting,” meaning use of an automated decision system to inform individualized wages based on surveillance data about an employee. Civil penalties up to $10,000 per violation and a private right of action would apply. Referred to the Labor Committee January 21, 2026; it has not passed either chamber. Would take effect on the ninetieth day after it becomes law.

Plain-English summary, written with AI assistance. The official text controls.

What it means for business

None yet: the bill is pending. If enacted, employers could not use automated systems with surveillance data to set individual wages, absent the safe harbor, and would face penalties up to $10,000 per violation and employee lawsuits.

Key provisions

  1. “Algorithmic wage-setting”: using an automated decision system to inform individualized wages based on surveillance data about an employee; it does not include a decision not to hire a person who was not previously an employee
  2. Safe harbor: an employer is deemed not to engage in it if wages are based solely on data specific to the individual directly related to the tasks hired for, or differences in the cost to employees of providing labor, and it discloses in plain language before hiring what data is considered and how
  3. Employers using an automated decision system for wages must publish procedures to ensure data accuracy, let employees correct or challenge data, and let them request what data was considered and how
  4. The Attorney General must adopt implementing rules
  5. Civil penalty not to exceed $10,000 for each violation, paid to the General Fund
  6. Private right of action: greater of actual damages (with 8% prejudgment interest) or $3,000 per violation, or three times actual damages on clear and convincing evidence of bad faith or intentional violation; costs and attorney fees
  7. Would take effect on the ninetieth day after it becomes law; referred to Labor January 21, 2026; Senate same-as S8872

Latest legislative action

Jan 21, 2026. referred to labor

Sponsors

NameRole
Primary
Primary
Primary
Primary
Primary

Related and companion bills

Topics and industries

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