Is There a Local Law 144 Vendor Audit Registry?

You searched "local law 144 vendor audit registry lookup" and found nothing — here's why

Your AEDT vendor renews next quarter. Before you sign, you want one simple thing: a place to type in the vendor's name and see whether an independent bias audit is on file, when it happened, and who ran it. So you search "local law 144 vendor audit registry lookup," expecting something like a DOT license lookup or a state contractor database.

You find nothing official. No DCWP portal. No searchable list. No government-hosted database of AEDT vendors and their audit status at all.

That's not a search problem. It's the actual state of the law. New York City's Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP) enforces Local Law 144, but it does not maintain a central registry where employers can look up a vendor's audit history. By the end of this piece, you'll know exactly what does exist in its place, why that gap matters more than it might seem, and how to build a verification record that holds up if DCWP or a candidate ever asks you to produce one.

What DCWP actually requires — and what it doesn't provide

Local Law 144 puts three obligations on employers using an AEDT to screen or evaluate candidates or employees for jobs performed in New York City: an annual independent bias audit of the tool, a public summary of the most recent audit results posted on the employer's own website (alongside the AEDT's distribution date), and advance notice to candidates or employees — at least 10 business days before use — with a way to request an alternative process or accommodation (Crowell & Moring LLP, 2023; Epstein Becker Green, 2023).

Notice what's missing from that list: nowhere does the law require DCWP to host the audit results itself. The publication obligation sits with the employer, on the employer's own site. There is no statutory requirement for a vendor to file its audit anywhere centralized, and no statutory mechanism for a third party — including you, as a prospective buyer — to look up a vendor's audit status in one place.

So the honest answer to "local law 144 vendor audit registry lookup" is: it doesn't exist, and nothing in the current text of the law creates one. Whatever verification happens, happens because an employer chose to do it, not because a government system makes it discoverable by default.

Why the absence of a registry is a bigger problem than it looks

If audit publication were reliably enforced, the lack of a central lookup would be a minor inconvenience — you'd just check each vendor's own disclosure. The trouble is that publication compliance itself is inconsistent.

A peer-reviewed study of 391 New York City employers subject to Local Law 144 found that only 18 had posted an audit summary and only 13 had posted the required candidate notice (ACM FAccT, Wright & Muenster et al., 2024). That's not a vendor problem — it's an employer-side publication gap, and it means you can't assume a vendor's audit exists just because you can't find it on your own site's competitor or peer's page either.

Enforcement hasn't closed that gap. A December 2025 audit by the Office of the New York State Comptroller, covering the period from July 2023 through June 2025, found DCWP's enforcement of Local Law 144 "ineffective" (Office of the NY State Comptroller, 2025; DLA Piper, 2026). On the same set of 32 companies DCWP had reviewed, DCWP found only one non-compliant — the Comptroller's auditors, reviewing the same companies, found 17 (OSC, 2025).

The agency responsible for enforcing Local Law 144 found compliance issues in roughly 3% of the companies it reviewed. Independent auditors reviewing the identical companies found issues in more than half.

The Comptroller's report also found that during the audit period, DCWP received only two AEDT-related complaints, and did not investigate whether its own complaint intake was functioning — separately, test calls to the city's 311 line were misrouted 75% of the time and never reached DCWP at all (OSC, 2025; DLA Piper, 2026). And even where audits are published, a 2025 academic review — "Auditing the Audits" — found that many disclosed reports may understate real disparities, due to missing demographic data, opaque aggregation methods, and metrics that don't reflect how the tool is actually deployed (ACM FAccT, 2025).

Put together: no central registry, inconsistent employer publication, thin regulatory enforcement, and audits that may not fully surface the problems they're meant to catch. That's the actual environment you're buying an AEDT into — not a hypothetical risk, a documented one.

Building your own verification record, since no one else will

None of this means verification is impossible. It means the burden sits with you, and it's a burden worth taking seriously precisely because the government-side backstop is thin.

A workable verification record for each AEDT vendor covers:

• Audit existence and date — does an audit exist, and is it within the required annual cycle?
• Auditor identity and independence — who performed it, and can you confirm they have no financial or employment relationship with the employer or the AEDT vendor? Local Law 144 requires that independence explicitly — it's the same structural rule that keeps an audit-execution firm from also selling the employer its own audit-documentation tooling for that same engagement.
• What was measured — selection rates by demographic category, and whether an impact-ratio calculation (the "four-fifths rule": a group's selection rate falling below 80% of the highest-selected group's rate may indicate adverse impact, per the EEOC's Uniform Guidelines) was actually run (via Assessment Systems, 2024).
• Where it's posted — your own site, with the AEDT's distribution date alongside it, per the notice requirement.
• Renewal date — the annual clock resets every year the tool stays in use.

For a step-by-step walkthrough of the actual verification conversation to have with a vendor, see how to check if an AEDT vendor has a bias audit and AEDT vendor bias-audit verification. If you're earlier in the process — still deciding whether a tool is even in scope — start with is an AI hiring tool deployable in NYC, and pair your verification record with a full AEDT vendor due diligence checklist.

This is an operations record, not a legal opinion

Worth stating directly: everything above describes how to run the documentation side of vendor due diligence — tracking what a vendor claims, when, and from whom. It is not legal advice, and a tracked record is not itself a bias audit. Only an independent auditor with no financial or employment relationship to you or the vendor can perform that audit. If a specific vendor's compliance status is contested, or you need a determination on whether your deployment is in scope, confirm directly with DCWP or your own counsel. For the full obligation set in one place, see the NYC Local Law 144 compliance guide.

We're also watching this space for what comes next. A hosted, searchable vendor audit lookup — something closer to what "local law 144 vendor audit registry lookup" searchers are actually hoping to find — is the kind of tool we'd like to build, and it's on our roadmap alongside a live reminder engine for renewal dates. Neither exists yet. If you want to know when they do, join the waitlist.

Your first action: track it yourself

Since no external registry will do this for you, the fastest fix is a workbook built for exactly this gap: a running log of every AEDT vendor you deploy, their audit date, auditor, independence confirmation, and renewal window, in one place you control. The AEDT Vendor Bias-Audit Status Tracker Workbook gives you that structure today — no waiting on a government system that isn't coming. Download it, populate it with your current vendor roster, and you've built the registry that doesn't otherwise exist.