What an HB 3773 Demand Letter Looks Like (And How to Be Ready)

The earliest HB 3773 demand letters are now in circulation. They follow a pattern that tracks adjacent statutes (NYC LL 144, BIPA, Title VII disparate-impact theory), with specific adjustments for Illinois civil-rights framing. Here's what the pattern actually looks like, drawn from letters we've seen and the broader plaintiff-side playbook.

The structure of a typical demand letter

Plaintiff-side firms have a template. The letters tend to share six sections:

1. Identification of the plaintiff — a current or former employee, candidate, or applicant.
2. Statement of the alleged violation — specifically, that the company used an AI tool in a manner that caused a discriminatory outcome and/or failed to provide required notice.
3. Statutory hooks — citations to the IHRA, HB 3773, and adjacent federal statutes (Title VII, ADA) where the facts allow.
4. Preservation demand — a comprehensive list of documents the company is required to preserve, often running 30–50 numbered categories.
5. Production demand — a subset of the preservation list that the plaintiff wants produced now, usually within 14–30 days.
6. Settlement framework — implicit or explicit, often pegged to a multiple of the plaintiff's lost wages plus a fee component.

What the preservation list actually asks for

This is the part that matters operationally. Expect requests for:

• The complete catalog of AI tools used in employment decisions during the relevant period
• All candidate-facing notices delivered during the period, with proof of delivery
• The employer's internal AI use policy, dated and versioned
• Vendor contracts and any bias-audit reports received from vendors
• Records of HR team training on AI use
• Communications discussing AI tool selection, configuration, or output
• Hiring metrics broken out by protected class, before and after AI tool adoption
• Records of any internal audit, complaint, or escalation related to the AI tool

If those categories sound familiar, it's because they map almost one-to-one to the artifacts an HB 3773 Compliance Engagement produces.

Why responses go badly

The companies that struggle with these letters aren't struggling with legal interpretation. They're struggling with documentation. The pattern:

• Inventory exists in someone's head, not in writing
• Notice text is buried in a privacy policy with no proof of delivery
• The "policy" is a memo from outside counsel that was never adopted
• Vendor diligence consists of a sales-deck PDF nobody read
• Training records don't exist

With that posture, the response involves reconstructing the file under time pressure, often without access to former vendors' historical configurations. That's an expensive, high-risk exercise that tends to produce concessions in the settlement framework.

Why responses go well

Companies with a complete, dated file produce it. The file's existence — and the dated workflow visible inside it — frequently changes the plaintiff's economic calculation. The case either resolves quickly on favorable terms or doesn't get filed at all, because the marginal value of pursuing it has dropped.

The reasonable posture

The defensible position is the same one auditors recommend for any high-stakes documentary obligation: maintain a current, dated file, organized to be produced on demand. The 90-day Compliance Engagement builds exactly that file. The AI Inventory is the foundation; the policy, notices, vendor file, and training records build on top.

If a letter is already in hand

Don't respond without involving employment counsel. Pull together what you have, identify the largest gaps, and decide whether to assemble the missing artifacts under privilege. Book a Risk Review and we'll walk through what's recoverable and what's not.

We are not a law firm. Demand-letter response involves legal interpretation and should be led by your employment counsel.

Lakeshore is a compliance consultancy, not a law firm. This article is general information and not legal advice.