Case 01: AI Hiring Tool
AI Hiring Tool: is it legal in the EU, the United States and China?
The system on trial: CV screening & candidate ranking. The same product meets three legal realities. Each verdict below is an editorial summary of the instruments cited under it, so every claim can be checked against the official text in one click.
EU: HEAVILY REGULATED. US: HEAVILY REGULATED. CN: MOSTLY UNREGULATED
AI Hiring Tool: how does the European Union treat it?
HEAVILY REGULATED. High-risk by list position. Recruitment and selection AI: targeted job ads, CV filtering, candidate evaluation, is Annex III high-risk: conformity assessment, human oversight, bias-controlled data governance, EU database registration. Obligations apply from 2 Dec 2027 (post-Omnibus).
HEAVILY REGULATED means: Legal, but gated by conformity, licensing, oversight and documentation duties.
Source: Annex III, point 4: AI Act: High-risk: employment & recruitment
The trapdoor: PROHIBITED
If the tool infers candidates' emotions, it's not regulated: it's prohibited.
Art. 5(1)(f) has been in force since Feb 2025: the ban applies today, not in 2027.
AI Hiring Tool: how does the United States treat it?
HEAVILY REGULATED. The most-regulated AI use case in America, without a federal AI law. Title VII/ADA/ADEA disparate-impact liability stands (guidance withdrawn, statutes intact). NYC LL144 demands annual bias audits, Illinois AIVIA + HB 3773 cover interview and decision AI, Texas TRAIGA bans intentional discrimination, and Colorado's ADMT successor lands in 2027.
HEAVILY REGULATED means: Legal, but gated by conformity, licensing, oversight and documentation duties.
Source: Title VII: Civil Rights Act: disparate-impact liability; LL144: NYC Local Law 144: bias audits; AIVIA: Illinois AI Video Interview Act (820 ILCS 42); TRAIGA §552.056: Texas Responsible AI Governance Act
AI Hiring Tool: how does China treat it?
MOSTLY UNREGULATED. No dedicated employment-AI law. Duties arrive sideways: PIPL Art. 24 grants explanation and refusal rights for automated decisions; public-facing platform features trigger CAC algorithm filing; Shanghai Art. 69 bars discriminatory conditions.
MOSTLY UNREGULATED means: No AI-specific obligations in this jurisdiction.
Source: PIPL Art. 24: PIPL: automated decision-making rights; S28: Fangda Partners: recruitment AI in China
The trapdoor
Foreign-hosted SaaS hiring tools typically can't pass the filing: they're quietly disabled or localized.
The other 5 cases on the board
- LLM Chatbot: legal in the EU, the US and China?general-purpose customer service. EU: TRANSPARENCY DUTY. US: LIGHT-TOUCH. CN: LICENSED: FILING REQUIRED.
- Medical Diagnostic AI: legal in the EU, the US and China?AI-driven diagnostic device. EU: HEAVILY REGULATED. US: HEAVILY REGULATED. CN: LICENSED: FILING REQUIRED.
- Deepfake Generator: legal in the EU, the US and China?synthetic media tool. EU: TRANSPARENCY DUTY. US: LIGHT-TOUCH. CN: HEAVILY REGULATED.
- Credit Scoring AI: legal in the EU, the US and China?automated creditworthiness. EU: HEAVILY REGULATED. US: HEAVILY REGULATED. CN: HEAVILY REGULATED.
- Police Live Facial Recognition: legal in the EU, the US and China?real-time biometric ID in public. EU: PROHIBITED. US: MOSTLY UNREGULATED. CN: HEAVILY REGULATED.
Read the regimes behind these verdicts
- The three regime dossiers explain why European Union, United States and China reach different answers about the same product.
- The Framework Explorer holds every instrument cited on this page, each with its own page, status, provisions and sources.
- Open this case on the interactive board to see the three stamps land side by side.
- The EU AI Act Explorer serves the text of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 itself, one page per provision.
Knowing the verdict is step one. Passing the assessment is the job.
The programs teach the work that follows: classification calls, conformity assessment, filings, documentation, and the judgment to defend every decision.
VERIFIED 29 JUL 2026. The verdicts are editorial summaries of the instruments cited above, not rulings. Study aid, not legal advice: the official texts are always authoritative.