Is AI Hiring Legal in Massachusetts? Lie-Detector Law, Chapter 93A, and Employer Audit

When Brendan Baker applied for a supply-chain job with CVS Health in Massachusetts, his online workflow routed him into a pre-employment video interview on HireVue. Behind the webcam, the software integrated Affectiva facial-expression and vocal-intonation analysis to generate scores alleged to weigh integrity, honor, and truthfulness. Nowhere on that screen did Baker receive Massachusetts's mandatory warning on lie-detector tests. CVS moved to dismiss, arguing an automated video interview was nothing like a polygraph. On February 16, 2024, U.S. District Judge Patti B. Saris disagreed in Baker v. CVS Health Corp., 717 F. Supp. 3d 188 (D. Mass. 2024) (FindLaw), ruling Baker suffered a concrete informational injury and letting his state lie-detector claims proceed before an individual settlement in July 2024.

National trackers list Massachusetts as having "no AI hiring law," tempting HR teams to switch on Applicant Tracking System (ATS) add-ons unread. Under M.G.L. c. 149, s. 19B(4), each lie-detector or notice violation carries a $500 statutory minimum, treble lost wages, and attorney's fees (s. 19B). On April 16, 2024, Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell issued an AI Advisory confirming enforcement of Chapter 93A, Chapter 151B, and 201 CMR 17.00 (AG PDF), followed by a $2.5 million AI loan settlement (Mass.gov) and a $2.275 million Boston tenant-screening settlement (Cohen Milstein). Part of our safe use of AI tools at work hub and paired with candidate rights on AI-scored interviews, this October 2026 guide offers operational steps, not legal advice.

Why having no standalone Massachusetts AI Hiring Act does not mean unregulated

Massachusetts regulates AI resume rankers, chat screeners, video scorers, and background checks today through five technology-neutral statutes carrying private suits, treble damages, and low headcount floors. Waiting for the State House to pass a standalone AI Act leaves small employers exposed now.

Think of installing commercial induction ranges inside a 1920s brick cafe in Somerville. Even if city code never prints "induction range," existing electrical, ventilation, and egress laws govern the kitchen the second you flip the breaker. Where that analogy breaks down is silent software updates: an owner sees a new stove arrive, whereas a cloud ATS can enable a "reliability score" or criminal-history auto-knockout in a quarterly release unseen.

Federal politics have not paused these statutes. As mapped in whether the federal AI executive order cancels state AI laws, Executive Order 14365 (December 11, 2025) cannot repeal state laws. Meanwhile, Senate Bill S.35 (H.77, the F.A.I.R. Act requiring 30-day worker notices, impact assessments, and human review over automated employment decisions) advanced to Senate Ways and Means on October 16, 2025 (S.35).

How M.G.L. c. 149 s. 19B and Baker v. CVS Health apply to AI video interviews

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 149, Section 19B is the sharpest trap in AI recruiting because it covers any "device, mechanism, instrument or written examination" used to gauge truthfulness and requires a 34-word warning on every job application in the Commonwealth:

1. Broad device rule (s. 19B(1)): Covers polygraphs plus "any other device, mechanism, instrument or written examination" operated or interpreted for "the detection of deception, the verification of truthfulness, or the rendering of a diagnostic opinion regarding the honesty of an individual."
2. No out-of-state server defense (s. 19B(2)(a)): Hosting an AI interview in Utah or California is no defense when the candidate seeks employment within Massachusetts.
3. Mandatory 34-word notice (s. 19B(2)(b)): Every Massachusetts job application must print a verbatim warning in "clearly legible print." Putting that text in boldface on both your main ATS form and external video landing screens prevents split-portal omissions.
4. Zero candidate waiver (s. 19B(3)-(4)): Clicking "I agree" cannot waive s. 19B. Presidents, COOs, and managers who condone violations face personal liability ($300 to $1,500 fines), while applicants have three years to sue individually or as a class for $500 minimum per violation, treble lost wages, and attorney's fees.

Boston federal rulings from 2024 through 2026 draw a two-part boundary (Chambers, May 2026):

• Informational standing (Baker v. CVS Health, Feb 2024): Judge Saris denied dismissal (717 F. Supp. 3d 188) where Baker alleged CVS's HireVue screen integrated Affectiva vocal and facial metrics scoring integrity and truthfulness while omitting the s. 19B(2)(b) warning.
• Actual use vs. capability (Saint Cyr v. JPMorgan Chase, 2025 to 2026): In October 2025, a federal judge dismissed the core s. 19B(2) count in Saint Cyr (appealed to the First Circuit as No. 25-2129 in 2026), holding plaintiffs must plausibly allege actual honesty evaluation rather than theoretical capability, while remanding the standalone s. 19B(2)(b) missing-notice claim to state court (Courthouse News).

Worked statutory math: Suppose a 40-person Woburn distributor routes 120 Massachusetts applicants through a $4,800/year video platform with a "Credibility & Integrity" vocal rubric left on and omits the s. 19B(2)(b) notice on the video portal. Statutory minimums start at 120 x $500 = $60,000, before treble back pay for a rejected finalist (12 weeks at $1,250/week trebled to $45,000) plus plaintiff fees. Disabling honesty traits in writing and adding the boldface notice costs $0 and 30 minutes.

What the Massachusetts AG's April 2024 AI Advisory means under Chapter 93A, Chapter 151B, and 201 CMR 17.00

Even when an AI tool disables every honesty toggle, Attorney General Campbell's April 16, 2024 Strategic AI Advisory confirms that state consumer-protection, anti-bias, and data-security laws govern commercial AI deployment (Orrick).

1. Chapter 93A (M.G.L. c. 93A, s. 2): Marketing or deploying AI models with untested "bias-free" or accuracy claims, or using defective tools unfit for screening, violates Chapter 93A (c. 93A, s. 2). Off-the-shelf models misread multi-column resumes at measurable rates, as shown in how often AI is wrong by task. In July 2025, AG Campbell secured $2.5 million from Earnest Operations LLC over AI loan models alleged to cause disparate outcomes and flawed notices under c. 93A. Pair vendor vetting with our 12 hiring-vendor contract questions.
2. Chapter 151B (M.G.L. c. 151B, s. 4): Covers Massachusetts employers with 6 or more employees (c. 151B, s. 4), barring intentional bias and algorithmic disparate impact via proxies like ZIP codes, graduation years, or caregiving gaps. Under s. 4(16), webcam and speech hurdles trigger disability claims; in 2025, the ACLU filed charges after an Indigenous and Deaf Intuit worker faced HireVue speech barriers (HR Dive). Every AI screen needs a zero-penalty human option.
3. 201 CMR 17.00 (M.G.L. c. 93H): Carries zero employee floor whenever a firm holds a Massachusetts resident's name plus Social Security number, state ID / driver's license number, or financial account number (201 CMR 17.00). Pasting I-9s, W-4s, or ID scans into consumer chatbots breaks WISP and encryption mandates. In IBM's 2026 Cost of a Data Breach study (n = 602 breached organizations, Ponemon research), unapproved staff AI tools appeared in 43% of security incidents across studied organizations (IBM).

Why automated background checks break Massachusetts Ban-the-Box and CORI rules (803 CMR 2.00)

National ATS "auto-knockout" criminal prompts and one-click federal FCRA rejection timers violate M.G.L. c. 151B, s. 4(9)-(9 1/2) and Department of Criminal Justice Information Services (DCJIS) rules at 803 CMR 2.00 (Mass.gov).

• Ban-the-Box (c. 151B, s. 4(9 1/2)): Employers with 6+ staff cannot ask criminal-history questions on initial written or chatbot applications unless a statute mandates disqualification for that exact job.
• Off-limits records (c. 151B, s. 4(9)): Employers cannot request or score non-conviction arrests, sealed/expunged files, specified first minor misdemeanors, or misdemeanor convictions 3 or more years old with no intervening convictions.
• Eight-step CORI gate (803 CMR 2.20): Generic FCRA auto-letters fail in Massachusetts. Before revoking an offer over criminal history from iCORI or a private CRA, HR must: (1) notify the candidate, (2) send the full report, (3) identify the source, (4) attach its written CORI Policy (mandatory at 5+ checks/year under 803 CMR 2.16), (5) pinpoint the exact conviction item, (6) allow a dispute window, (7) attach DCJIS correction instructions, and (8) log all steps.

Copy-ready audit: The ed.cafe Massachusetts Employer AI Hiring Audit & M.G.L. c. 149 s. 19B Application Notice Check

Run the ed.cafe Massachusetts Employer AI Hiring Audit & M.G.L. c. 149 s. 19B Application Notice Check below before buying, renewing, or toggling any recruiting tool.

PART 1: MANDATORY M.G.L. c. 149, s. 19B(2)(b) APPLICATION NOTICE CHECK
Print this exact 34-word notice in boldface across every Massachusetts portal:
"It is unlawful in Massachusetts to require or administer a lie detector test
as a condition of employment or continued employment. An employer who violates
this law shall be subject to criminal penalties and civil liability."

[ ] 1. Main ATS form (Workday, Greenhouse, Lever, ADP, iCIMS)
[ ] 2. Mobile / quick-apply / SMS chatbot flows (Indeed, Paradox, Fountain)
[ ] 3. External video or skills-assessment landing screen BEFORE recording
[ ] 4. Paper or kiosk walk-in applications at clinics, shops, or warehouses
[ ] 5. Staffing agency and external recruiter intake forms for your MA roles

PART 2: 10-GATE MASSACHUSETTS AI HIRING COMPLIANCE AUDIT
[ ] 1. Zero Honesty Scoring (c. 149, s. 19B(1)): Written vendor confirmation
    that facial-affect, eye-gaze, vocal-stress, sentiment, integrity, and
    deception scoring are permanently OFF on our tenant.
[ ] 2. No Waiver Reliance (c. 149, s. 19B(3)): Never rely on clickwrap consent
    to cure prohibited honesty metrics (void by statute in Massachusetts).
[ ] 3. Proxy Scrub (c. 151B, s. 4 - 6+ staff): Exclude ZIP codes, grad years,
    school prestige tiers, and caregiving or medical gaps.
[ ] 4. Accommodation Path (c. 151B, s. 4(16)): One-click link lets Deaf, blind,
    speech-disabled, or neurodivergent candidates take a live human call.
[ ] 5. Chapter 93A Substantiation (AG Apr 2024 Advisory): Written validation on
    file; untested "bias-free" claims removed from career pages.
[ ] 6. Ban-the-Box Gate (c. 151B, s. 4(9 1/2)): Zero criminal-history questions
    on initial applications or chatbots (absent a statutory mandate).
[ ] 7. Record Filter (c. 151B, s. 4(9)): Suppress non-conviction arrests, sealed
    files, protected first minor misdemeanors, and misdemeanors 3+ years old.
[ ] 8. Manual 8-Step CORI Gate (803 CMR 2.20): Auto-adverse OFF; HR sends notice,
    report, source, CORI Policy (5+ checks/yr), pinpointed item, dispute window,
    and DCJIS sheet + compliance log.
[ ] 9. Candidate PII Lockdown (201 CMR 17.00): Keep SSNs, IDs, and bank numbers
    out of consumer bots; onboarding vendors sign WISP/encryption terms.
[ ] 10. Multi-State Check: Remote roles open to IL, CA, NYC, or CO include state
    AI notices and 4-year selection-rate logs alongside Massachusetts rules.

PART 3: CANDIDATE DISCLOSURE & ACCOMMODATION BLOCK (ABOVE APPLY BUTTON)
How We Review Applications: [Org] uses [Tool] to assist with [step]. A human
manager reviews qualified applications before hiring decisions, and facial,
vocal, or honesty scoring is disabled. For accommodations or a live human
alternative without penalty, email [hr@domain].

Pairing the ed.cafe Massachusetts Employer AI Hiring Audit with our one-page AI use policy for small business keeps HR and outside recruiters aligned on one standard.

Where this stops being true

This guide translates Massachusetts statutes, advisories, and dockets into operational checklists as of October 29, 2026; it is not legal advice. Four boundary conditions require Massachusetts employment counsel:

1. Law-enforcement and statutory-disqualification roles: s. 19B(2) exempts criminal-investigation polygraphs run by law enforcement (while covering police job applicants), and c. 151B, s. 4(9 1/2) allows initial criminal-history questions where statutes mandate disqualification (EEC childcare, long-term care, or FDIC banking).
2. Evolving First Circuit precedent: While Baker v. CVS Health (717 F. Supp. 3d 188) recognized informational injury on missing notices and affect scoring, Saint Cyr v. JPMorgan Chase (No. 25-2129, argued in 2026) tests how specifically a candidate must plead actual honesty evaluation.
3. Out-of-state work locations: s. 19B(2)(a) governs tests administered anywhere "for employment within the commonwealth." Fully remote hires working solely outside Massachusetts trigger multi-state checks alongside Illinois HB 3773, California FEHA ADS, or Colorado SB 26-189.
4. Pending bills (S.35 and S.2619): Enactment of Senate Bill S.35 or the Massachusetts Data Privacy Act (S.2619 / H.5479) will add pre-use notices, impact assessments, and profiling opt-outs.

Grab printable drills in the ed.cafe Staff Room or apply for Massachusetts Circle #1 (30 chairs, free Google AI Professional Certificate via the Massachusetts AI Hub, closing December 1, 2026) on our start page.

Questions people ask

Key terms

• M.G.L. c. 149, s. 19B (Lie-Detector Statute): Massachusetts law barring any device or instrument used to detect deception or assess honesty, and mandating a 34-word job-application notice.
• Informational injury (Baker v. CVS Health): Concrete standing recognized when an employer omits the s. 19B(2)(b) notice before routing a candidate into an assessment alleged to score truthfulness.
• M.G.L. c. 93A (Consumer Protection Act): State statute barring unfair or deceptive commercial acts, applied by the April 2024 AG AI Advisory to untested "bias-free" or defective AI tools.
• M.G.L. c. 151B: Massachusetts anti-discrimination and Ban-the-Box law covering 6+ employee workplaces and barring algorithmic disparate impact and unaccommodated barriers.
• 201 CMR 17.00: State data-security regulation requiring a WISP and encryption whenever an entity holds Massachusetts residents' SSNs, state IDs, or financial account numbers.
• 803 CMR 2.00 / 2.20 (CORI Rules): DCJIS regulations governing Massachusetts criminal history checks, written CORI policies (5+ checks/year), and 8-step pre-adverse notices.

Sources

1. MA General Court, "M.G.L. c. 149, s. 19B": malegislature.gov
2. D. Mass., Baker v. CVS Health Corp., 717 F. Supp. 3d 188 (Feb. 16, 2024): FindLaw
3. Chambers / Sidley, "AI 2026: MA" & Saint Cyr v. JPMorgan (No. 25-2129): Chambers and Courthouse News
4. MA AG Campbell, "AI Advisory" (Apr. 16, 2024): Mass.gov PDF and Orrick
5. MA General Court, "c. 151B, s. 4" & "c. 93A, s. 2": c. 151B and c. 93A
6. MA OCABR, "201 CMR 17.00": Mass.gov PDF
7. MA DCJIS, "803 CMR 2.00": Mass.gov
8. MA AG "Earnest $2.5M Settlement" & SafeRent $2.275M Settlement: Mass.gov and Cohen Milstein
9. HR Dive, "Intuit & HireVue Charge" (Apr. 2025): HR Dive
10. MA Bill S.35 & IBM 2026 Breach Study (n = 602): S.35 and IBM