We covered the emotional side of this question in why candidates are walking out of AI job interviews — the discomfort, the sense of being evaluated by something that can't actually understand you. This piece answers the practical follow-up we hear constantly: can you actually say no? Do you have a legal right to a human interviewer instead? The honest answer is: it depends heavily on where you and the employer are located, and in most of the US, the right is narrower than people assume.
The Short Answer
There is no general federal right in the US to opt out of AI hiring screens and demand a human interviewer instead. What exists is a patchwork of disclosure, consent, and bias-audit requirements that vary by state and city — some of which include a genuine opt-out or alternative-process right, and many of which only require the employer to tell you AI is being used, without giving you a way to refuse it.
Illinois: Consent Required, But No General Opt-Out
Illinois was first, with the Artificial Intelligence Video Interview Act (effective 2020, amended 2022). It requires employers to: notify candidates before the interview that AI will be used to analyze video, explain how the AI works and what characteristics it evaluates, and obtain the candidate's consent before the interview. If a candidate refuses consent, the employer cannot use AI analysis on that interview — but note the mechanism: this is a consent requirement, not a standing right to demand a human interviewer. In practice, refusing consent may just mean the employer declines to move you forward, since Illinois law doesn't require them to offer an alternative process.
New York City: Bias Audits and Notice, Not Opt-Out
NYC Local Law 144 (effective 2023) took a different approach entirely — it doesn't touch consent or opt-out at all. Instead it requires employers using "automated employment decision tools" to: commission an independent bias audit of the tool within the past year, publish a summary of that audit publicly, and notify candidates at least 10 business days before use that an AEDT will be applied, along with what job qualifications and characteristics it assesses. Candidates can request an alternative selection process or accommodation, but only if the employer has already made one available — the law requires notice, not a guaranteed alternative process, which is a real gap in the statute's practical protection.
Colorado: The Most Comprehensive US Framework So Far
The Colorado AI Act, with obligations targeted for 2026, requires developers and deployers of "high-risk" AI systems — a category that explicitly includes employment decision tools — to conduct impact assessments, disclose AI use to affected individuals, and provide a mechanism to correct inaccurate data used by the system. It also gives consumers the right to appeal an adverse decision and request human review in certain circumstances, which is closer to the right most candidates assume already exists everywhere. Implementation timing has shifted in legislative sessions, so the exact effective date is worth checking directly with the Colorado Department of Law if it's relevant to you.
Maryland and Other States
Maryland requires consent specifically for facial recognition technology used in interviews (HB 1202), narrower in scope than Illinois's broader AI video analysis law. California, Washington, and several other states have considered or passed narrower AI-in-employment disclosure bills, but as of this writing none establish a general right to demand a human interviewer in place of an AI one. The legislative trend is toward disclosure and audit requirements first, opt-out or human-review rights second — Colorado is the leading edge, not yet the norm.
In most US states, your strongest lever is asking directly, in writing, whether the employer's process is subject to Illinois-, NYC-, Colorado-, or Maryland-style requirements, and requesting the audit summary or disclosure document those laws require where applicable. A polite written request often surfaces an alternative process even where the law doesn't strictly mandate one — many employers would rather accommodate than risk a compliance question.
The EU: A Genuinely Different Standard
As we detailed in our explainer on the EU AI Act and high-risk hiring classification, EU-based candidates are in a materially stronger position. Article 22 of the GDPR already gives individuals the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing that produces legal or similarly significant effects — including hiring decisions — with a right to obtain human intervention, express their point of view, and contest the decision. The EU AI Act layers additional obligations on top: mandatory human oversight built into high-risk systems, and (for many deployers) a requirement to inform workers before deploying the tool at all. Combined, GDPR Article 22 and the AI Act give EU candidates something close to the "right to a human" that US candidates often assume they already have.
What to Actually Do If You Want a Human Review
- Ask directly and in writing whether the interview process uses AI, what it evaluates, and whether an alternative process exists — this creates a paper trail and, in NYC and Illinois specifically, may trigger disclosure obligations the employer must meet.
- Request the bias audit summary if you're applying in New York City — it's a public document under Local Law 144, and employers are required to make it available.
- Cite your jurisdiction's specific law by name when asking — a request that references the Illinois AI Video Interview Act or Colorado AI Act signals you know the framework, which tends to get taken more seriously than a general objection.
- If you're in the EU, you can explicitly invoke your GDPR Article 22 right to human intervention — this is a much stronger legal footing than anything currently available in the US.
- If in doubt about what a specific tool is scoring, our guide to what AI interviews actually score and our what is AI screening explainer are useful background before you ask.
The gap between what candidates assume they're entitled to and what the law in most US jurisdictions actually guarantees is large — and closing that gap starts with knowing exactly which law, if any, applies to your specific application.
This is the fifteenth piece in our AI recruitment research series. This piece describes the general legal landscape as of July 2026 and is not legal advice — laws in this area are changing quickly, and candidates with a specific concern should consult an employment attorney licensed in their jurisdiction. Sharingan AI evaluates recruitment technology and policy independently, without vendor sponsorships or affiliate relationships.