New York's groundbreaking attempt to track AI-driven job losses has hit a wall of corporate silence. Nearly a year after Governor Kathy Hochul ordered companies to disclose whether automation caused layoffs, not a single employer out of 162 has checked the box—even as Amazon, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley cut thousands of jobs while publicly touting AI's productivity gains. The zero-disclosure rate is raising questions about whether companies are dodging transparency requirements or if AI's impact on employment remains overstated.
New York thought it had a simple solution to one of the economy's most pressing questions: Are companies actually replacing humans with AI? Governor Kathy Hochul ordered the state's Department of Labor to add a checkbox to mandatory layoff notices last March, making New York the first state to directly ask employers whether "technological innovation or automation" drove workforce cuts. Eleven months later, the answer is a deafening silence—zero companies have admitted to AI-driven layoffs despite cutting nearly 28,300 jobs.
The numbers don't add up. Amazon reported 660 affected workers in New York filings while CEO Andy Jassy publicly warned that AI benefits would lead to job cuts affecting roughly 30,000 employees companywide. Goldman Sachs topped New York's layoff charts with over 4,100 workers affected and internally linked reductions to AI productivity gains, according to Reuters. Morgan Stanley cut 260 New York positions, with an unnamed source telling Bloomberg that a portion reflected automation. Yet on required Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification filings, all three marked other reasons or declined to specify technology's role.
"AI is not the reason behind the vast majority of cuts," Amazon spokesperson Kelly Nantel insists, pointing instead to "reducing layers" and cutting pandemic-era hiring excesses. Kristin Devoe, a spokesperson for Governor Hochul, confirms the Department of Labor follows up with every employer to verify filing accuracy. In Amazon's case, the company explained workers hired during e-commerce surges were simply no longer needed—a classic "economic" justification that sidesteps the automation question entirely.
The disconnect between public AI enthusiasm and private disclosure reveals the messy reality of tracking technology's workforce impact. Over the past two years, companies have celebrated offloading customer service inquiries to chatbots, sales tasks to AI agents, and accounting work to automated systems. Gartner research found 20 percent of customer service leaders report AI-driven headcount cuts. But admitting you're replacing humans with algorithms carries reputational risk—Amazon employees penned an open letter demanding transparency after suspecting AI played a larger role than acknowledged.
Nationwide, nearly 55,000 companies attributed job cuts to AI adoption in 2025, according to an analysis by Challenger, Gray & Christmas tracking public statements. The firm's data suggests New York's mandate is exposing a compliance problem rather than proving AI's job impact is minimal. Companies can select from 17 reasons on WARN forms, including bankruptcy, merger, or relocation. The tech option triggers a follow-up asking them to specify whether AI, robotics, or software modernization replaced workers—a level of detail many employers appear reluctant to provide.
Economists have long struggled to pin down automation's true employment effects. The Bureau of Labor Statistics notes companies can take decades to fully reorganize around new technologies, making immediate causation difficult to establish. Is a customer service rep laid off because an AI chatbot handles inquiries, or because the company shifted strategy? When Goldman Sachs cuts middle management while deploying AI tools for data analysis, which factor drove the decision?
"Do we really care if someone is displaced by AI, or just the normal competitive marketplace?" asks Erica Groshen, a labor economist at Cornell University. She argues lawmakers should require companies to share detailed data on evolving skills and occupations rather than forcing binary yes-no answers about technology. The current WARN system wasn't designed for the nuanced reality of AI augmentation, where humans and algorithms work side-by-side until suddenly they don't.
New York State AFL-CIO president Mario Cilento applauds Hochul's effort but calls for stronger enforcement. "We must establish specific regulations that mandate employer accountability and transparency in AI deployment," Cilento says. The union federation represents one of the country's largest labor groups and sees the zero-disclosure rate as proof that voluntary checkboxes won't cut it.
State lawmaker Harry Bronson is taking matters further. Last month, the Assembly Labor Committee chair introduced two bills that could force greater transparency. One would require businesses with over 100 employees to file annual estimates on unfilled roles due to AI and how many workers saw hours change because of automation. The second bill would expand WARN-like procedures to a wider set of businesses and crucially, tie compliance to eligibility for state grants and tax breaks. Companies face just $500 daily fines for current WARN violations—hardly a deterrent for major employers.
The legislation faces an uphill battle. Business groups typically resist disclosure mandates, and even well-intentioned employers struggle with attribution. When Morgan Stanley deploys AI to automate parts of wealth management while also consolidating offices, separating causes becomes an accounting exercise in corporate spin. Goldman Sachs declined to comment for this story. Morgan Stanley didn't respond to requests.
Over 750 notices spanning 162 employers have been filed since the AI option appeared on forms, affecting workers across industries from Wall Street to catering and retail. Many of the filers operate in sectors where AI replacements remain limited—event staff and store clerks aren't yet facing wholesale automation. But the presence of Amazon, Goldman Sachs, and other AI-forward employers in the zero-disclosure club suggests something more troubling: Companies know admitting to AI-driven cuts will spark backlash, so they're choosing vague language instead.
Devoe, the governor's spokesperson, emphasizes the importance of honest reporting. "The data collected through WARN notices serves as a valuable indicator of shifts in the labor market," she says. "It is crucial for employers to answer questions frankly so New York State can support displaced workers to the greatest extent possible." The state uses advance notice to ramp up retraining services and job placement programs, but that system only works if the data reflects reality.
For now, New York's experiment in AI transparency is producing more questions than answers. Workers watching automation anxiety spread through office parks and warehouses want straight talk about whether their jobs are next. Companies deploying AI at scale insist they're boosting productivity, not cutting heads—even when the headcount numbers tell a different story. And policymakers are learning that requiring disclosure is one thing; enforcing meaningful compliance is something else entirely.
New York's pioneering attempt to quantify AI's job impact has revealed a truth lawmakers didn't anticipate: Transparency laws only work when companies cooperate. The zero-disclosure rate after nearly a year suggests employers have mastered the art of attributing layoffs to economics, restructuring, or market conditions while privately deploying AI to do work humans once handled. As Bronson's legislation works through Albany and other states watch New York's experiment, the question isn't whether AI is affecting employment—it's whether regulators can ever compel honest answers. Workers caught in the middle deserve better than checkbox theatre, but getting corporations to admit they're replacing humans with algorithms may require enforcement mechanisms with actual teeth. Until then, the official record will continue showing what everyone knows isn't true: that AI has cost exactly zero New York jobs.
