Ghost Job Ads Under Fire: Five States Move to Ban Fake Listings as Lawmakers Target Employer Deception
Not legal advice. This article discusses legal and regulatory developments and is generated with AI assistance under human editorial review. It is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws and regulations vary by jurisdiction and are subject to change. You should consult your own qualified legal counsel before taking or refraining from any action based on the content of this article. Read our AI Transparency statement.
The News
At least five state legislatures are reviewing bills to restrict ghost job ads — postings for positions that are already filled or do not exist — according to a May 26 Forbes report by Michelle Travis. The states are Pennsylvania (HB2321), New Jersey (S2136), New York (S8877, S9208), California (AB1251) and Kentucky (HB324). New York's bill, which has already passed both houses and awaits the governor's signature, would impose fines of $2,500 per non-compliant posting, escalating to $5,000 if uncorrected within 30 days.
The legislation is being driven by research showing the scale of the problem. A 2024 MyPerfectResume survey of 753 U.S. recruiters found that eight in 10 admitted their company posts jobs that are filled or do not exist. A separate Resume Builder survey found that 70% of hiring managers viewed fake job postings as 'definitely or probably an acceptable workplace practice.' Pennsylvania's bill goes further than most, requiring employers to disclose hiring timelines, specify whether a posting is for an existing or anticipated vacancy, and ban the mining or sale of applicant data.
At the federal level, the proposed Truth in Job Advertising and Accountability Act would set national standards for transparency in job postings and prohibit misleading ads. Momentum is building as lawmakers across the political spectrum express concern about the impact on job seekers and on the accuracy of labour market data.
Why It Matters
For TA leaders, this wave of legislation lands at an awkward time. As CHRO data from The Conference Board confirms that hiring is concentrating in specific roles, the temptation to keep 'always on' job postings running — to maintain candidate pipelines or signal growth to investors — is understandable. But the regulatory direction is clear: if a posting doesn't represent a real role with a real intent to hire, it could soon carry significant fines.
Beyond compliance, there's a candidate experience angle that matters more than ever. In a low-hire, low-fire market, every applicant who applies to a ghost job and hears nothing is a candidate who will never apply to your organisation again. Cleaning up your job-posting hygiene is not just a legal exercise — it's a long-term talent-brand investment.
Taking Action
All action is situated in your corporate context. These are starting points, not prescriptions — choose what fits.
Connect
Who to talk with in your enterprise
Your head of HR compliance — Ask them to create a state-by-state tracking matrix for pending ghost job legislation in every state where you operate. New York is the first mover, but Pennsylvania and California won't be far behind.
Your candidate experience lead — Have them run a three-month audit of removal times: for every role that was filled, how long did the job posting remain live? Two weeks is now the emerging legal standard.
Your head of talent sourcing — Review your evergreen/pipeline job posting strategy. If you maintain 'always open' postings for talent pooling, you need a clear disclosure framework so candidates understand they're applying for future consideration, not a current vacancy.
Inspect
What to take a closer look at
This week, pull a report of every job posting that has been live for more than 60 days. For each one, determine: is this role still open? If filled, was the posting taken down? If it's a pipeline posting, does it clearly communicate that to applicants? Specific tool to look at: Your ATS's 'posting age' report — most major ATS platforms (Workday, SuccessFactors, iCIMS, Greenhouse) have this data, but few TA teams run it as a compliance check.
Reflect
What to think about more deeply
The most interesting question isn't whether ghost jobs are unethical — it's whether the current economic conditions (low-hire, low-fire, applicant volume noise) have created an environment where posting real-but-unfillable roles has become the path of least resistance? And if so, what does it say about the health of the talent market when employers feel compelled to pretend they're hiring?