Relates to the use of automated decision tools by landlords for making housing decisions; sets conditions and rules for use of such tools.
This bill would add a new section to New York’s Real Property Law regulating landlords’ use of automated housing decision-making tools, including software that uses algorithms, computational models, or artificial intelligence to help screen housing applicants. The bill defines these tools broadly, but excludes ordinary software that does not materially affect discretionary decisions, such as calculators, spreadsheets, databases, and security filters.
Under the bill, a landlord could not use such a tool unless it first undergoes at least an annual disparate impact analysis by an independent auditor. The landlord must make a summary of the most recent analysis publicly available on its website before using the tool, and also provide that summary through any digital housing listing where the tool will be used. Applicants must receive advance notice that an automated tool will be used, what characteristics it evaluates, what data it uses and where the data comes from, the landlord’s retention policy, and the reason for any denial made through the tool. Applicants must also be given an opportunity to request an alternative selection process or accommodation.
The bill would also give the Attorney General authority to investigate suspected violations and seek court orders or other relief to enforce compliance. In practice, it would create new disclosure, auditing, and enforcement obligations for landlords using AI-based tenant screening or similar automated systems, while giving applicants greater transparency and a path to challenge or avoid automated screening.
The available context shows no recorded committee transcript, vote, or formal opposition, so the overall sentiment cannot be measured from debate history. Based on the bill’s structure and caption, it appears to be a consumer-protection and anti-discrimination measure aimed at ensuring fairness and transparency in housing decisions made with automated tools.
The main point of potential contention is the burden the bill places on landlords and housing providers, who would need to obtain independent audits, publish summaries, provide detailed notices, and potentially offer alternative screening processes. Supporters would likely emphasize the risk of algorithmic bias, discrimination, and opaque decision-making in housing access, while critics may argue that the requirements are costly, administratively complex, or could limit the use of efficiency tools in tenant screening.
The bill would amend the Real Property Law by adding section 227-g, creating a new regulatory framework for automated housing decision-making tools used in tenant screening. It would impose disclosure, audit, and notice requirements on landlords and authorize the Attorney General to enforce compliance. The measure would affect landlords, property managers, housing platforms, and vendors of tenant-screening or AI-based decision tools, while also expanding protections for housing applicants.
No committee discussion or vote history is provided, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition in the record supplied. The bill’s design suggests a generally protective, pro-consumer, and anti-discrimination posture, with an emphasis on transparency and oversight of AI in housing. In the absence of recorded debate, the likely sentiment is favorable among housing-rights and civil-rights advocates, with possible concern from landlord and industry stakeholders.
The likely areas of contention are the scope of the definition of an automated housing decision-making tool, the cost and feasibility of annual disparate impact analyses by independent auditors, and the requirement to publicly disclose tool summaries and applicant-facing information. Landlords and housing industry groups may object to compliance burdens, potential liability, and operational delays, while advocates for fair housing are likely to support the bill as a safeguard against discriminatory or opaque algorithmic screening. The requirement to provide denial reasons and allow alternative selection processes may also be debated as either necessary due process or an administrative burden.