Can You Use AI to Assess Video Interviews in Illinois?

What should you check before you act?

If your organization is considering Illinois video interview law, the first question is not whether a vendor says its tool is compliant. It is whether the rules actually apply to your intended use, users and decisions. A focused assessment starts with the facts that determine the relevant legal test.

This guide is intended for illinois employers and recruiting providers. It offers a decision framework and primary references; it does not provide an individual legal opinion or guarantee a business outcome.

What might a Illinois video-interview disclosure and consent review include?

A defined documentary review, if the relevant professional capability is available and the engagement is accepted, may examine pre-interview notices, consent and recording deletion. The scope should be agreed from the business facts before anyone describes a legal or technical conclusion.

• Initial fact and intended-use questionnaire
• Applicable primary-source and exception mapping
• Evidence and supplier-information request list
• Decision and risk matrix with unresolved questions
• Action owners and practical next-review triggers

Have a specific business question? Describe the tool and decision you need to make. Do not send confidential records in an initial message.

From your business question to a reviewable action plan

1. Define: identify the system, owner, users and relevant location.
2. Check: match the facts against the controlling rule or published standard.
3. Document: identify evidence, supplier dependencies and unresolved questions.
4. Act: allocate proportionate changes and appropriate professional referrals.

The process is a proposed structure for assessment, not a claim that a particular service has already been commissioned, performed or validated for your organization.

What should illinois employers and recruiting providers verify?

This research is organized around pre-interview notices, consent and recording deletion. It distinguishes a legal rule or published standard from a proposed internal control, and it does not assume that the same answer applies to every organization. Each recommendation below should be tested against the actual use case, competent authority, provider arrangement and currently operative text.

When does the Illinois law apply?

The Illinois Artificial Intelligence Video Interview Act addresses employers asking applicants to record video interviews and using AI analysis of those submitted recordings when considering positions based in Illinois. The statutory trigger depends on both video-interview collection and AI evaluation. Do not apply the provision automatically to ordinary live conversations, transcription used solely for note-taking or recruitment workflows without the defined AI analysis.

Legal test: Identify the statutory or published-standard provision and record whether the relevant condition is satisfied, not satisfied or unclear. Describe the product configuration that supports the finding. If the cited material is guidance rather than binding law, label that distinction explicitly.

What must applicants know before recording?

Before asking for the interview, the employer must give notice that AI may analyze the recording and consider fitness for the position. The employer must also explain how the analysis works and the general types of characteristics used to evaluate the applicant. The information should be sufficiently concrete to match the actual software rather than a generic statement that “AI may be used.”

User decision: Record the specific decision a business owner must make, who is affected, and what changes if the answer is yes rather than no. Avoid converting a broad information query into a promise of a predetermined legal outcome.

Is consent required before using the analysis?

The Act requires the applicant’s consent before the employer uses AI analysis of the video. Employers may not use the described AI evaluation when the applicant has not consented. A practical workflow should capture the notice version, consent record, time of collection and subsequent handling. A candidate agreeing to a broad website policy should not be assumed to have given the precise consent required without examining the record.

Risk boundary: Review reasonably foreseeable failure scenarios, including inaccurate outputs, access to sensitive information and unexpected use of the tool. Determine which risks are within the narrow question addressed by this guide and which require another professional review.

Who may see or receive the videos?

Illinois restricts sharing applicant videos to persons whose expertise or technology is necessary for evaluating fitness for a position. Recruitment vendors, external reviewers and hosting providers should be mapped to the actual sharing path. Review access controls and contractual requirements with recipients. A promise that only HR sees the footage may be inaccurate when an outsourced system processes or stores the recording.

Source evidence: Keep a dated copy of the relevant official publication or applicable rule, plus a pointer to the product record used for assessment. Record any exceptions and unresolved facts; an unattributed checklist should not be treated as proof of legal compliance.

What happens when the applicant requests deletion?

The statute addresses deletion within 30 days of a request and instructing other recipients to delete their copies, including backup copies described in the Act. An employer should know where recordings are stored and how deletion requests reach vendors. Keep a record of action taken without keeping the entire discarded recording solely as proof. Retention duties under other laws can require separate analysis.

Implementation check: Test a real user or employee workflow rather than relying only on product documentation. Note any user prompts, notice screens, approval steps, logs or fallback procedures that show how the control actually functions.

What if an interview uses other technologies?

Live automated captioning, video storage, biometric analysis, emotion inference and AI scoring may create different fact patterns and additional privacy or employment-law questions. Do not assume that compliance with this one Act resolves Illinois biometric rules or general discrimination law. Inventory the product modules and ask the vendor what information it derives from a face, voice or other characteristic.

Supplier responsibility: Where a third party provides components, map who controls the interface, model settings, operational logs and user communications. A service agreement may allocate tasks but does not in itself remove statutory duties.

What evidence makes the process reviewable?

Keep a representative invitation, AI explanation, consent record, vendor technical summary, criteria for evaluation, audit and fairness evidence where available, access permissions and deletion procedure. Record who resolves applicant questions. If a platform changes its model or features, update the notice and review whether the previous consent still describes the actual process.

Cross-border distinction: Check whether the same action reaches users in more than one jurisdiction or a regulated sector. Record each legal source separately and avoid copying a jurisdiction-specific conclusion into another country or state.

How does this compare with NYC hiring audits?

Illinois video-interview obligations focus on notification, explanation, consent, sharing and deletion. New York City’s qualifying AEDT regime instead adds a particular independent bias-audit and publication requirement. Employers recruiting across locations should create a jurisdiction-by-workflow matrix rather than copy a universal AI hiring disclosure across all postings.

Decision record: End with a clearly owned action, the evidence required to close it, a named reviewer role and a truthful next review trigger. If a core fact is unknown, record the gap instead of concluding that the activity is automatically lawful.

Decision matrix: which facts change the answer?

The scenarios above illustrate why pre-interview notices, consent and recording deletion must be evaluated from actual facts. They are not universal exemptions or approvals. A change to who operates the AI system, who receives an output or how a decision is made can change the relevant law or professional obligation.

Evidence checklist for a scoped review

• Confirm video + AI analysis + Illinois position triggers
• Provide pre-interview explanation and gather consent
• Map recipients and ability to delete recordings
• Review other biometric and employment obligations separately

For each checklist item, note the source, business owner, current evidence, unresolved question, action required and review trigger. This creates an auditable working list without claiming that a standard list replaces legal analysis or technical testing. Review the evidence again after a product release, change of vendor, expansion into a new market or relevant official update.

Limitations and alternatives to a standalone review

Some problems can be answered by the official source and a simple internal inventory. Others require qualified local legal counsel, specialist technical testing, independent auditing or consultation with a regulator. A documentary readiness review can identify gaps and prepare questions but should not be described as a certification, official approval or representation in a proceeding unless the actual engagement and qualifications support that description.

Start with the narrow decision in this guide, then follow its related links for adjacent questions. Recheck the current version of each source before taking action. Laws and professional obligations can change after this page is updated, and a service may have multiple functions with materially different regulatory treatment.

Related guides for the next decision

• Ai Law
• Ai Employment Discrimination Compliance
• New York City Ai Hiring Audit Requirements
• California Ai Hiring Tool Compliance