Post-PBSA Mid-Year 2026: Four Takeaways for NY Criminal Screening

The PBSA Mid-Year Legislative & Regulatory Conference wrapped up last week in Washington, D.C., bringing together screening professionals, legal experts, and regulators for three days of intensive discussion on the forces shaping our industry. For those who couldn't attend - or those who did but want to ensure nothing slipped through the cracks - here are the key takeaways with direct implications for CRAs operating in New York.

This isn't a comprehensive session-by-session recap. Instead, we've distilled the conference into the developments that matter most for New York criminal screening operations: what changed, what's coming, and what you should do about it.

Takeaway #1: Clean Slate Implementation Is Accelerating

The New York Clean Slate conversations at PBSA Mid-Year revealed that implementation is proceeding faster than many anticipated - but not uniformly. Several key developments emerged:

What We Learned

Sealing has begun in earnest. The New York Unified Court System is actively sealing eligible records, with the pace expected to accelerate through 2026 and into 2027. Courts are prioritizing older eligible records first, meaning misdemeanors from 2020-2022 and felonies from 2015-2017 are among the first being processed.

Data source lag is real. Multiple sessions highlighted the gap between when records are sealed at the court level and when that sealing is reflected in third-party databases, state repositories, and CRA data sources. This lag creates a window where CRAs may report records that have technically been sealed - a compliance exposure that requires attention.

Cross-state complexity is emerging. With twelve states now having Clean Slate laws - each with different eligibility criteria, waiting periods, and exceptions - multi-state CRAs face growing complexity in understanding what records are reportable in which jurisdictions. The panel emphasized that "sealed in New York" doesn't mean "sealed everywhere," and vice versa.

What This Means for Your CRA

Verify data source update cycles. Contact your New York data providers to understand their processes for incorporating sealed record information. How frequently do they update? What's their source for sealing notifications? How do they handle the transitional period?

Prepare for dispute volume increases. As more records are sealed, disputes will increase - both from consumers who believe their records should have been sealed and from those whose records were sealed but still appeared on a background check due to data lag. Your dispute handling processes need to account for both scenarios.

Educate your clients now. Many employers don't understand Clean Slate's implications. Proactive client communication about what to expect - fewer records, different record types, potential discrepancies during the transition - positions you as a compliance partner and reduces reactive client service burden.

Takeaway #2: FCRA Enforcement Is Intensifying

Multiple sessions focused on the uptick in FCRA litigation and regulatory scrutiny, with a consistent theme: accuracy procedures are under the microscope like never before.

What We Learned

Name-matching continues to drive litigation. The CFPB's 2021 advisory opinion on name-only matching continues to influence enforcement and litigation strategy. Plaintiffs' attorneys are specifically targeting CRAs whose matching procedures rely too heavily on name without sufficient secondary identifiers.

"Maximum possible accuracy" is being interpreted strictly. Courts and regulators are applying the FCRA's accuracy standard more rigorously, particularly in cases involving criminal records. The standard isn't "reasonable accuracy" - it's "maximum possible accuracy," and CRAs need procedures that reflect that standard.

Documentation is critical. In enforcement actions and litigation, CRAs that can demonstrate robust, documented procedures fare significantly better than those with informal or undocumented processes. If you can't prove what you did, you'll be presumed not to have done it.

New York-Specific Implications

New York's unique court structure amplifies accuracy challenges. With criminal records fragmented across county courts, over 1,200 local courts, and state repositories - each with varying data quality and identifier availability - the risk of misattribution is higher than in states with centralized systems.

CRAs relying on the NYS OCA's exact-match CHRS system face particular exposure. When OCA's system fails to surface records due to name variations, or surfaces records belonging to a different individual with a similar name, the CRA bears responsibility for the accuracy of what it reports.

What This Means for Your CRA

Audit your matching procedures. Are you using multiple identifiers (name, DOB, SSN, address) to verify matches before reporting? Can you document this process for each search?

Review your New York data sources. Understand the matching capabilities and limitations of each source you use. OCA's exact-match requirements, county court variations, and third-party database methodologies all affect accuracy.

Document everything. Every search, every match decision, every verification step should be documented and retained. In litigation, documentation is your defense.

Takeaway #3: AI Regulation Is Here

The AI sessions at PBSA Mid-Year made clear that artificial intelligence regulation has moved from "emerging issue" to "current compliance obligation" for many CRAs.

What We Learned

State laws are taking effect. Colorado's AI Act, along with similar legislation in Utah, Texas, and other states, creates disclosure, audit, and oversight requirements for automated decision-making tools used in employment contexts. These aren't future obligations - they're current law.

"AI" is broadly defined. The regulatory definition of AI and automated decision-making tools is broader than many CRAs realize. Automated matching algorithms, adjudication scoring, and even some database search functions may trigger compliance obligations depending on how they're used and disclosed.

Federal preemption is uncertain. While there's discussion of federal AI legislation that might preempt state requirements, nothing is imminent. CRAs should plan for continued state-by-state compliance rather than waiting for federal clarity.

New York-Specific Implications

New York City's Local Law 144, requiring bias audits for automated employment decision tools, remains the most significant local AI regulation affecting screening. CRAs serving NYC employers need to understand how their tools interact with clients' compliance obligations under this law.

While New York State hasn't enacted comprehensive AI legislation, conference discussion suggested Albany is watching other states' implementations closely. CRAs should anticipate state-level requirements in the next legislative session.

What This Means for Your CRA

Inventory your automated tools. Identify every automated process in your screening workflow - matching algorithms, scoring systems, adjudication tools, chatbots. Understand what each does and how it might be classified under AI regulations.

Review disclosure practices. Are you disclosing to consumers when AI tools contribute to screening results? Are your clients disclosing to applicants? Disclosure requirements vary by jurisdiction but are becoming standard expectations.

Consider bias auditing. Even if not legally required in your jurisdictions, proactive bias auditing of automated tools demonstrates due diligence and positions you favorably if requirements expand.

Takeaway #4: Fair Chance Compliance Requires Local Expertise

Sessions on fair chance hiring and ban-the-box legislation reinforced a consistent theme: national CRAs cannot apply one-size-fits-all processes to jurisdictions with local fair chance requirements.

What We Learned

Local variations matter enormously. The difference between NYC's Fair Chance Act, Buffalo's ordinance, Rochester's requirements, and state-level Article 23-A obligations isn't academic - it's operationally significant. Timing requirements, covered employers, exemptions, and notice procedures all vary.

Enforcement is increasing. Local enforcement agencies, particularly in New York City, are actively investigating fair chance violations. The NYC Commission on Human Rights has increased enforcement activity, and penalties for violations are substantial.

Employer confusion creates CRA opportunity. Many employers don't understand their fair chance obligations, particularly the Article 23-A eight-factor analysis required before adverse action. CRAs who can provide educational resources and compliant workflows add significant value.

What This Means for Your CRA

Map your client jurisdictions. Understand which of your clients operate in NYC, Buffalo, Rochester, Westchester, Suffolk County, and other jurisdictions with local fair chance requirements. Ensure your processes account for each.

Develop jurisdiction-specific resources. Create client-facing materials explaining fair chance requirements for each New York jurisdiction where you have significant client presence. This positions you as the compliance expert.

Review adverse action workflows. Ensure your adverse action processes accommodate the specific timing, notice, and documentation requirements of each jurisdiction - not just federal FCRA requirements.

Your Post-Conference Action Plan

Based on these takeaways, here's a prioritized action plan for CRAs with New York operations:

This week: Contact your NY data sources to understand their Clean Slate update procedures and timelines. Document what you learn.

This month: Audit your matching procedures and documentation practices. Identify gaps in your accuracy protocols, particularly for New York searches.

This quarter: Inventory your automated tools and assess AI regulation exposure. Develop or update client education materials on Clean Slate and Fair Chance requirements.

By mid-year: Evaluate your NY data strategy holistically. Are you positioned for the access restrictions and cost pressures that will intensify through 2027?

The Bottom Line

PBSA Mid-Year 2026 reinforced what New York-focused CRAs have been experiencing: the regulatory environment is growing more complex, enforcement is intensifying, and the cost of comprehensive screening is rising. But these challenges also create opportunities for CRAs who position themselves as compliance partners rather than commodity data providers.

The CRAs who thrive in this environment will be those who invest in understanding New York's unique requirements, build processes that anticipate regulatory trends, and communicate proactively with clients about what's changing and why it matters. The conference is over. The work continues.

Missed us at PBSA Mid-Year?

If we didn't connect in Washington, let's continue the conversation. Screening Logic specializes in New York criminal screening - we understand the complexities discussed at the conference because we've been solving them for over 25 years in partnership with New York State law enforcement.

Whether you're evaluating your NY data strategy, preparing for Clean Slate implementation, or looking to reduce costs while improving coverage, we'd welcome the opportunity to discuss your specific challenges.