How To Improve Hiring Transparency Amid Ghost Job Scrutiny

Imagine a job seeker who has spent weeks tailoring applications, paying for a premium subscription on a major hiring platform and refreshing listings every morning, only to discover that many of the positions were never real. The listings were ghost jobs — postings for roles that do not exist or are not actively being filled. It sounds like a bad dream, but the problem is well documented.

But why might a company have ghost jobs posted? For one, increased job postings may help a company look healthier than it is. Companies that want to present a high-performing image may use the hiring ads as an indicator of growth, signaling to employees, customers and other stakeholders that the business is thriving when it may not be.

According to recruiting software platform Greenhouse’s 2024 analysis, between 18% and 22% of job postings on its platform in any given quarter qualified as ghost jobs. Further, a 2025 survey by Clarify Capital found that “1 in 5 employers intentionally leave roles unfilled to reduce costs while appearing active in hiring.”[1]

While the numbers are difficult to track, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported this month that there were 7.3 million job openings in July, but only 5.1 million hires.[2] This continues a trend from last year, where June 2025 saw similar numbers.[3] This gap is noticeable and consistent, and regulators are starting to pay attention.

On July 14, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced a first-of-its-kind investigation into whether LinkedIn advertises and profits from ghost jobs, alleging the platform may have misled consumers who paid up to $69.99 per month for premium subscriptions to access job opportunities that may have never been real.[4]

This issue has also garnered bipartisan and federal attention. On June 18, Sen. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., sent letters to the U.S. Department of Labor, the Federal Trade Commission and the BLS demanding answers on how the administration plans to combat the ghost jobs epidemic.[5]

At the same time, state legislators across the country are pushing bills that would require employers to disclose hiring timelines, flag inactive postings and reveal the use of artificial intelligence in recruiting.[6]

Together, these developments signal what employment attorneys have described as a shift from pay transparency to hiring transparency — and employers that fail to adapt risk regulatory scrutiny, consumer protection claims and significant financial penalties under emerging state and federal frameworks.

Texas’ LinkedIn Investigation

What makes the Texas investigation particularly noteworthy is its legal theory. The core allegation is not an employment law claim, but a consumer protection one. The theory rests on the premise that LinkedIn has a duty to provide the services it advertises and to ensure that premium subscribers are actually receiving access to legitimate job postings.

Specifically, Texas is examining whether LinkedIn violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and the attorney general’s office has issued a civil investigative demand seeking documents, data and internal communications related to the platform’s advertising, marketing and verification practices.

LinkedIn has pushed back, maintaining that its policies require posted job openings to be authentic and accurately represented. It also pointed to features that display company response times and whether positions are actively reviewing candidates.[7]

Still, by framing ghost jobs as a consumer protection violation, Texas is establishing a model that other state attorneys general could replicate. Such actions should get the attention of employers and platforms alike, because it means this issue sits at an increasingly crowded intersection of consumer protection, advertising law and data practices.

State Legislation

The Texas investigation is not happening in a vacuum; other states have been noticing as well. A new wave of state legislation is moving beyond pay transparency requirements toward hiring transparency.

On June 2, the second chamber of the New York State Legislature passed S.B. 8877, which would require employers with 100 or more employees to disclose — in bold, capitalized text — whether a position is expected to be filled within 90 days, more than 90 days, or is simply a resume collection exercise for future openings.[8] Employers would also be required to remove postings within two weeks of filling a role, and violations would carry penalties starting at $2,500 per noncompliant posting, and escalating to $5,000 if uncorrected within 30 days.

Critically, while the bill has yet to come before Gov. Kathy Hochul, it would take effect immediately upon signing, giving covered employers virtually no lead time to adjust their practices.[9]

New Jersey lawmakers are considering a similar measure, and California and Kentucky have proposed comparable bills in recent sessions.[10]

At the federal level, the grassroots organization Truth in Job Ads is advocating for the Truth in Job Advertising and Accountability Act, which would set national standards for transparency and prohibit fake or misleading job ads. In November, it collected more than 50,000 signatures in support of its campaign.[11]

If past trends are any guide, the movement could spread quickly. Once one or two states pass such laws, others tend to follow.

Pennsylvania is taking an especially comprehensive approach with a catchall bill that was introduced in March. H.B. 2321 would require job ads to include salary ranges, a hiring timeline or disclosure that the company is not actively hiring, as well as information about the use of AI tools in the recruiting process.[12]

A separate New York bill, S.B. 9208, which is pending before the Senate Labor Committee, would mandate that employers notify third-party job posting websites once an advertised

position has been filled or the ad is otherwise inactive, and then require the platform to remove the listing within seven days.[13]

The message is clear: Legislators want applicants to know whether a job is real, whether a human is evaluating their application and how long they can expect the process to take.

Another wrinkle that is folded into many of these bills are requirements that employers disclose when AI tools are used in hiring decisions. At least a handful of states, including Colorado and Illinois, already have laws or regulations addressing algorithmic decision-making in employment.[14]

New York is also advancing a separate bill, S.B. 8706A/A.B. 9581B, that would require publicly traded companies and businesses with more than 50 employees to submit annual reports to the state Department of Labor regarding how AI affects their hiring and workforce decisions, including estimates of employees who were displaced or whose hours were reduced because of AI.[15]

Practical Tips for Employers

With those guideposts in mind, what should a practical employer do right now? The trend lines are clear enough that waiting for a patchwork of new laws to take effect is not a sound strategy.

A good starting point is an audit of existing job postings. Employers should review all active listings to confirm that they correspond to genuine, currently open positions, and remove or update postings for roles that have been filled, paused or eliminated, as stale listings could now present a legal risk.

Alongside that review, employers should develop clear internal protocols for deactivating postings when a position is filled or put on hold. If a company is collecting resumes for pipeline building purposes, which can be a legitimate practice, it should consider whether disclosure of that intent is appropriate or may soon be required.

There are additional implications for workforce management. For example, if a company suddenly takes down all of its present postings, its current team members may learn of — or suspect — a hiring freeze long before management is prepared to navigate those discussions.

Employers should develop a job posting hygiene plan and start cleaning up the inactive postings sooner rather than later to be ready not just to comply with any regulations that may be issued, but also to ensure that they are able to direct the narrative, rather than respond.

To be sure, the implication that employers are being deceptive is not always fair. There are often legitimate reasons to build a pipeline, and headcount requirements, budgets and role approvals can shift unexpectedly. But whatever the reason a listing lingers, employers should lean toward transparency with their listings.

Employers should also map the AI tools and automated systems used in their hiring workflow, from resume screening to chatbot interviews, and prepare disclosure language that can be adapted as state requirements continue to develop.

For multistate employers in particular, the question of whether to adopt a single national compliance standard or manage obligations state by state is already pressing. Given the

pace of legislative activity, a harmonized, more transparent approach may prove to be more efficient, easier to manage and less risky in the long run.

While the Texas investigation may be the first of its kind, it is unlikely to be the last. As such, employers and platforms should be tracking attorney general actions, legislative developments and agency guidance across key states.

If there is a silver lining for employers, it is that much of this legislation is still in the proposal stage, and the contours of enforcement are just beginning to take shape. But that window will not stay open indefinitely. The ghost jobs phenomenon — whether the result of deliberate deception or simply outdated operational practices — is now squarely in regulators’ crosshairs.

Companies that get ahead of these changes by cleaning up their postings, building clear internal protocols and preparing for broader disclosure obligations will be best positioned not only to manage compliance risk, but also to build the kind of trust with applicants and the public that no premium subscription can buy.

Dinah Alobeid, Ghost Jobs and Bots: Candidates Reveal Their Top Challenges in the Greenhouse 2024 State of Job Hunting Report, Greenhouse, Ghosting (Dec. 10, 2024), https://www.greenhouse.com/blog/greenhouse-2024-state-of-job-hunting-report (last visited Sept. 15, 2026) (finding 18-22% of jobs posted on the Greenhouse platform classified as ghost jobs in any given quarter); Bryan Gerson, Ghost Jobs 2.0: The Hiring Mirage in 2025, Clarify Capital, https://clarifycapital.com/ghost-jobs (last visited Sept. 15, 2026) (finding nearly one in three employers admit to posting job listings with no intention of hiring). See also ResumeBuilder.com, 3 in 10 Companies Currently Have Fake Job Postings Listed (Jun. 18, 2024), https://www.resumebuilder.com/3-in-10-companies-currently-have-fake-job-posting-listed (last visited Sept. 15, 2026) (survey of 1,641 hiring managers finding 40% of companies posted a fake job listing in the past year).
Bureau of Lab. Stats., U.S. Dep’t of Lab., Job Openings and Labor Turnover Summary (Sept. 3, 2026), https://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.nr0.htm (last visited Sept. 14, 2026).
Bureau of Lab. Stats., U.S. Dep’t of Lab., Job Openings and Labor Turnover Summary (July 29, 2025), https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/jolts_07292025.htm (last visited Sept. 14, 2026).
Press Release, Off. of the Tex. Att’y Gen., Attorney General Ken Paxton Investigates LinkedIn for Advertising Fake and Misleading Job Opportunities (Jul. 14, 2026), https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/attorney-general-ken-paxton-investigates-linkedin-advertising-fake-and-misleading-job-opportunities (last visited Sept. 14, 2026).

Press Release, U.S. Sen. Ruben Gallego, Gallego Demands Answers from Trump Administration on Combatting Ghost Jobs (Jun. 18, 2026), (last visited Sept. 14, 2026), https://www.gallego.senate.gov/news/press-releases/gallego-demands-answers-from-trump-administration-on-combatting-ghost-jobs/ (last visited Sept. 14, 2026).
Chris Marr, State Job Ad Bills Shift From Pay Ranges to ‘Ghost Jobs,’ AI Use, Bloomberg Law (May 1, 2026), https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/state-job-ad-bills-shift-from-pay-ranges-to-ghost-jobs-ai-use (last visited Sept. 14, 2026).
Michael Sinkewicz, Texas Investigates LinkedIn Over Alleged ‘Ghost Jobs’ Targeting Job Seekers, Fox Business (Jul. 15, 2026), https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/texas-investigates-linkedin-over-alleged-ghost-jobs-targeting-job-seekers (last visited Sept. 14, 2026).
Leni Battaglia, et. al, New York Severance Agreement and Job Posting Bills, JD Supra (Jul. 13, 2026), https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/new-york-severance-agreement-and-job-5788054/ (last visited Sept. 14, 2026).
Amanda M. Blair & Melissa Camire, New York’s Ghost Job Bill Could Reshape Hiring Practices, JD Supra (Jun. 9, 2026), https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/new-york-s-ghost-job-bill-could-reshape-7317669/ (last visited Sept. 14, 2026).
N.J. S2136 (2026); Cal. AB 1251 (2025) (requiring private employers to disclose in job postings whether the posting is for an existing vacancy); Ky. HB 57 (2025) and Ky. HB 342 (2026) (prohibiting the posting of ghost jobs and requiring disclosure of whether a posting is for an existing vacancy). See also Cong. Rsch. Serv., “Ghost” Job Postings, IF12977 (Apr. 25, 2025), https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12977 (last visited Sept. 15, 2026).
Laurel Kalser, New York Passes a Bill Aimed at Halting ‘Ghost Jobs’, HR Dive (Jun. 11, 2026), https://www.hrdive.com/news/new-york-passed-bill-aimed-at-halting-ghost-jobs/822620/ (last visited Sept. 14, 2026); 50,000 Americans Demand an End to Ghost Jobs, TRUTHINJOBADS.ORG (Nov. 14, 2025), https://www.truthinjobads.org/latest-news/50000-americans-demand-an-end-to-ghost-jobs (last visited Sept. 15, 2026).
Pa. H.B. 2321, 2025–2026 Reg. Sess. (introduced Mar. 26, 2026), https://www.palegis.us/legislation/bills/2025/hb2321 (last visited Sept. 15, 2026).
N.Y. S. 9208, 2025–2026 Leg. Sess.,

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/S9208 (last visited Sept. 15, 2026).

See Colo. S.B. 24-205, Consumer Protections for Artificial Intelligence Act (signed May 17, 2024) (requiring developers and deployers of high-risk AI systems to use reasonable care to protect consumers from algorithmic discrimination in consequential decisions, including employment), repealed and reenacted by Colo. S.B. 26-189 (signed May 2026); 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. 42/1 et seq., Artificial Intelligence Video Interview Act (eff. Jan. 1, 2020) (requiring employers using AI to analyze video interviews to notify applicants, explain how the AI works, and obtain consent).
Joseph Lazzarotti, AI in the Empire State, Two Bills Could Create New Compliance Obligations, JD Supra (Jun. 29, 2026), https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/ai-in-the-empire-state-two-bills-could-7772075 (last visited Sept. 14, 2026).

This article was originally published in Law360 on September 25, 2026, and is republished here with permission.

Disclaimer

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.