Pay ranges in job ads by jurisdiction

Of the 17 US jurisdictions we checked, 13 require pay information in the job posting itself. They are California, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York City, New York State, Vermont and Washington. Delaware has a posting law, signed but not yet in force. Connecticut requires the wage range on the earlier of an applicant’s request and an offer of compensation, and Rhode Island requires it on request. Nevada requires it for an applicant who has completed an interview. Outside the US, Ontario, British Columbia and Prince Edward Island (on its guidance page) require the expected pay or a pay range in public postings, subject to the thresholds and exceptions in the table. Newfoundland and Labrador has a posting section that its statute page marks as not yet in force. Singapore sets range rules for Employment Pass ads. Under the EU Directive, applicants have the right to receive the initial pay or its range, for example in a published vacancy notice or before the interview.

This page says what each rule asks the ad to show, whether remote roles are covered where an official page speaks to it, and which places we did not check.

The dates and thresholds below are as the pages we read state them on October 27 and 28, 2026. Several of those documents are older, and the rows give each one’s date where it matters. The counts cover only the rules we read and omit other US states and cities.

The rules by jurisdiction

US state dates and later changes are tracked on US pay transparency laws, and EU country positions are on the EU pay transparency tracker.

United States, rules that put pay in the ad

United States, a scheduled rule and rules that apply later in the process

Canada, Singapore and the EU

Remote and out-of-state roles

Official pages speak to remote roles in only some places. These are the passages we found.

• British Columbia: a guidance page last updated February 24, 2026 says the rule covers jobs advertised outside B.C. if the position is open to B.C. residents, and jobs that may be filled by someone living in B.C., either in-person or remotely.
• California: the Labor Commissioner’s Office reads the rule to cover a posting if the position “may ever be filled in California, either in-person or remotely”.
• Colorado: the CDLE page links a letter on remote jobs. The letter is dated July 21, 2021. It says “Remote jobs are clearly covered by the Act’s pay disclosure provision” and that “Jobs performable only at out-of-state sites may be beyond the reach of Colorado law”.
• Connecticut: the FAQ says the Act applies to employers within the state using the services of one or more employees for pay, even if such employees are located outside the physical confines of the state. It also says the Act does not apply to an out-of-state “national” employer not located within Connecticut, but does apply to a subsidiary of that employer which is located within the state and hiring employees. This answer concerns the later-in-process rule in the second table.
• Delaware: see the Delaware row in the US table.
• Maryland: the law applies to a posting for any position where work will be physically performed, at least in part, in Maryland. The FAQ’s example is a remote job at a company headquartered in Pennsylvania whose posting seeks workers based in Maryland. A position with only occasional work in Maryland would not be covered.
• Massachusetts: the posting requirement applies to all positions where the primary place of work is Massachusetts, and the FAQ says this includes positions that can be performed remotely to a Massachusetts worksite and remote workers with a primary place of work in Massachusetts.
• Nevada: NRS 613.133 does not mention remote work. NRS 613.320 says the provisions of NRS 613.133 and 613.310 to 613.4383 do not apply to “Any employer with respect to employment outside this state”.
• New Jersey: an employer that meets the coverage test must comply even if it is advertising nationally or accepting applications from anywhere in the country.
• New York State: the DOL says the law covers jobs that will physically be performed at least in part in the state, and adds that this includes remote positions. The statute also reaches a job performed outside New York that reports to a supervisor, office or other work site in New York.
• Ontario: the page’s definition of a publicly advertised job posting leaves out a posting for a position where the work is to be performed outside Ontario. It also leaves out work performed both outside and in Ontario when the outside work is not a continuation of work performed in Ontario.
• Vermont: the Act reaches a remote position that will predominantly perform work for an office or work location physically located in Vermont.

For the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Minnesota, New York City, Rhode Island, Washington, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Labrador, Singapore and the EU Directive (Articles 2 and 5), the pages we read do not mention remote roles. The British Columbia Pay transparency page does not mention them either, but the guidance page above does.

The tests differ, so an ad that is open to remote applicants should meet every test that could reach the role.

What a compliant posting shows

Across the rows, a range means two numbers the employer honestly expects to pay between. Several rules say good faith in terms in the sources behind the rows, among them California, the District of Columbia, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York City, New York State and Vermont. Washington requires an employer that offers only a fixed wage to disclose the fixed wage amount.

We recommend building one ad that meets the strictest rule on each element below for every place the role can be filled. One template is easier to audit than a different ad for each place.

• A minimum and a maximum in one unit (annual or hourly), taken from the pay band you would pay. A range written only to fill the field is the weak point, because several rules above describe it as an honest estimate of what the employer expects to pay.
• The range inside the ad. California’s FAQ says a link or QR code to the pay scale is not enough.
• A general description of benefits and other compensation. Five states name benefits in the posting rule (Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, Washington), and so do the Delaware Act and Colorado’s 2023 summary.
• A width inside the caps that could apply. That is $50,000 per year for Ontario and a maximum at most two times the minimum for a Singapore Employment Pass ad.
• For Ontario, the vacancy statement and the AI disclosure described in its row.
• For Colorado, the application method and the deadline.
• The same range on every copy. California’s FAQ says an employer that engages a third party to post must give it the pay scale. Ontario’s page says the employer is responsible for ensuring the requirements are followed.
• Keep every copy. Ontario’s page says employers must retain a copy of every publicly advertised job posting for 3 years after public access is removed.

The posting below is made up, with invented figures and benefits to show the layout. No employer is behind it.

Before: “Compensation Analyst, remote. Competitive salary and great benefits. Apply soon.”

After: “Compensation Analyst (remote, open to candidates in the United States). Pay range: $82,000 to $104,000 per year, our good faith estimate of what we expect to pay on hire. Benefits: medical and dental coverage, a 401(k) with employer match and 15 days of paid time off. Apply by November 30, 2026 on our careers page.”

The after version gives both ends of the range in one unit, a benefits line and an apply-by date. It fits the California and Massachusetts rows. An Ontario copy would also need the vacancy statement and, where AI screens applicants, the AI disclosure.

Common mistakes

• Treating a later-timing rule as the model for the ad. The Connecticut, Rhode Island and Nevada rules ask for the range after the ad is placed. A role that also runs in a posting-rule place needs the range in the ad anyway.
• Counting headcount one way for every place. New Jersey counts employees whether they work inside or outside the state. Massachusetts counts employees with a primary place of work in Massachusetts. The Hawaii flyer says the law does not specify where the 50 employees are located. Ontario counts all employees employed at each location in Ontario.
• Treating internal postings the same everywhere. Colorado covers postings and notices both internal and public. New York State covers promotion and transfer opportunities. Hawaii’s flyer says its section does not apply to internal transfers or promotions within a current employer. Ontario’s definition of a publicly advertised job posting leaves out a posting restricted to existing employees.
• Mixing up posting rules and report rules. British Columbia’s page covers both: ranges in public postings, and pay transparency reports that most employers with 50 or more employees must post by November 2026. The page also says employers above a certain size must post annual reports by November 1 each year. By our calendar count (derived, not on the page), November 1, 2026 is a Sunday. The page gives no weekend rule, so confirm the day with the province.
• Asking applicants about pay history. The EU Directive bars it in Article 5, and so do the British Columbia and Prince Edward Island pages.

Not checked, or no official statement found on the pages we read

Nothing here says a rule is absent.

• United Arab Emirates, India, Saskatchewan, Quebec and Manitoba: we have not read an official page on pay ranges in job ads for these places, so this page makes no statement about them.
• Other places not checked: the other Canadian provinces and territories, US states and cities outside the 17 in the tables, local ordinances, and the national laws of the EU member states (this page reads the Directive and, for Germany, the Entgelttransparenzgesetz).
• United Kingdom: the only page we read is a GOV.UK announcement of March 8, 2022 describing a pilot scheme in which participating employers list salary details on job adverts. We read no current UK statute or guidance on the point.
• Australia: the Fair Work Ombudsman job ads page says the pay rate for the advertised role must be at least the minimum rate in the applicable award or enterprise agreement, or in the National Minimum Wage order if neither applies. We found no statement on that page requiring a pay range. It is the only Australian page we read, and we read no state or territory law.
• Germany: the consolidated Entgelttransparenzgesetz text we read has no provision on pay in job advertisements. German transposition of the Directive is on the EU pay transparency tracker.

What we could not confirm

• California: the DIR FAQ states no start date for the original posting rule. The legislature’s page for Labor Code section 432.3 prints only the date of the 2025 amendment, effective January 1, 2026. The text of SB 1162 (Chapter 559, approved September 27, 2022), a bill amending the section, prints no effective date for it.
• Colorado: the CDLE page and INFO 9 give no employer-size threshold and no start date. The only coverage statement we read is in the July 21, 2021 CDLE letter.
• Employer-size thresholds are not stated on the pages we read for New York City and Rhode Island.
• British Columbia: the Pay transparency page gives no start date or size threshold for the posting rule. The start date in the row comes from the BC Laws copy of the Act, which is current to February 4, 2025.
• Prince Edward Island: we did not read the Act text. The Employment Standards Act consolidation (chapter E-6.2) on the province’s legislation site is marked “Repealed by 2024 c.66, s.105”.
• Newfoundland and Labrador: we did not read the provincial Gazette.

Using this in your 2027 plan

List each open role with the places where it can be filled, then match every place to a row above. Set the range before the ad goes live, with one named owner for the pay band. If your pay bands are set in the merit budget cycle, read this beside salary increase budgets for 2027.

Three dates on this page fall in your 2027 window. Washington’s notice-and-cure provision applies to postings from July 27, 2025 through July 27, 2027. If an employer corrects a posting within five business days of receiving written notice and, where applicable, demands a correction from any third-party posting entity, neither the department nor the court may assess or award penalties, damages or other relief for that violation. Delaware’s rule is scheduled for September 26, 2027 on the bill page. In Massachusetts, covered employers have 2 business days to cure defects after a Notice to Cure letter until October 29, 2027. We would not plan around the Washington window. The relief depends on written notice arriving and a correction within five business days. For the EU, national start dates are on the tracker.

Put these dates in your HR compliance calendar. Then open the recruiting plan template and add two columns to the hiring plan for each role: one for where the role can be filled and which row applies, one for who approved the range.

Written and reviewed by the HR Riant Editorial Team. General information, not legal advice.