PostLint
Job postings now break the law in 17 US states and 27 EU countries if salary ranges are missing or vague. Paste any listing and get a compliance report in seconds.
The Idea
A lightweight AI compliance checker for job postings. Paste your job listing, select which US states and EU countries the role is open to, and PostLint scans every line against jurisdiction-specific pay transparency laws. It flags missing salary ranges, overly broad ranges that violate California's SB 642 "good faith" requirement, missing benefits disclosures required in Colorado and Illinois, illegal salary history questions banned in 17+ states, and non-compliant language around compensation. Then it rewrites the flagged sections with compliant alternatives you can copy directly into your ATS. Exportable PDF compliance reports give HR teams an audit trail proving they checked before publishing. Think of it as ESLint for job postings: red squiggles for legal risk, green checks for compliant language.
Why Now
Two regulatory tsunamis are hitting simultaneously. In the US, 17 states plus Washington D.C. now mandate salary range disclosure in job postings, up from just Colorado in 2021. California's SB 642, effective January 2026, tightened the rules further by requiring "good faith" ranges that reflect what you actually expect to pay. New York enforcement ramped hard in 2025, citing thousands of violations. Meanwhile, the EU Pay Transparency Directive must be transposed into national law by June 7, 2026, just 30 days from now. It requires salary ranges in every job ad across all 27 member states. That is two compliance clocks ticking at once, and most SMBs have no tooling beyond reading blog posts and hoping they got it right.
How to Build
Core stack: Next.js frontend with a paste-and-scan interface, Claude API for natural language analysis of job posting text, and a Supabase rules database containing jurisdiction-specific requirements (salary range format, benefits disclosure rules, history ban provisions, employee thresholds, effective dates, penalty amounts). The AI layer handles the nuanced parts: detecting whether a range like "$50K-$200K" is too broad to qualify as "good faith" under California law, flagging implicit salary history questions, and generating compliant rewrites that preserve the original tone. The rules database is the moat, structured as versioned JSON per jurisdiction with effective dates, so you can show historical compliance. An API endpoint enables ATS integration (Greenhouse, Lever, Workable) via webhook.
Revenue Model
Freemium: 3 free scans per month with basic compliance flags. Pro at $29/month: 50 scans, all US states and EU countries, PDF compliance reports, compliant rewrite suggestions. Team at $79/month: unlimited scans, API access for ATS integration, bulk job posting uploads, shared audit dashboard. Enterprise at $199/month: custom jurisdiction rules, SSO, dedicated compliance report templates, priority rule updates when laws change. Additional revenue from a one-time "compliance audit" product at $99: scan your entire careers page and all active listings at once, get a comprehensive report. ATS marketplace listings (Greenhouse, Lever, Ashby) drive organic distribution.
Effort
Week one: build the rules engine covering the 17 US states with active laws, the core scanning UI, and the Claude-powered analysis pipeline. This is mostly data entry and prompt engineering, both well-suited to solo development. Week two: add EU Pay Transparency Directive requirements, PDF report generation, payment integration, and the API endpoint. The rules database is the most labor-intensive piece: each jurisdiction needs salary range requirements, benefits disclosure rules, salary history ban details, employer size thresholds, penalties, and effective dates. After launch, plan 2-4 hours per month to update rules as new laws pass or enforcement guidance changes.
Reddit Signal
Direct Reddit threads on job posting compliance tools were sparse in search results, but the demand signals come through clearly in adjacent discussions. HRMorning sourced insights from r/humanresources where HR pros discussed pay transparency pain points: range definition challenges, bias exposure from deviating from posted ranges, and the difficulty of maintaining consistency across multiple jurisdictions. The r/recruiting community frequently surfaces frustration with the patchwork of state laws, particularly for remote roles that trigger compliance obligations in every state where candidates might work. The broader signal is that HR professionals are currently navigating this complexity using blog posts, legal guides, and spreadsheets rather than purpose-built tooling.
Risk
Three main risks. First, accuracy liability: if PostLint tells an employer their posting is compliant and it is not, that creates trust and possibly legal problems. Mitigation: clear disclaimers that the tool provides guidance, not legal advice, and conservative flagging that errs toward over-warning. Second, rules maintenance burden: laws change, new states add requirements, enforcement guidance evolves. This is an ongoing operational cost that scales with coverage. Third, enterprise incumbents (Trusaic, beqom, Syndio) could launch lightweight tiers targeting the same SMB gap. Their sales cycles are slow, but the risk is real. The best defense: move fast, build ATS integrations that create switching costs, and own the "just paste and check" use case before they notice.
Verdict
PostLint sits at a rare intersection: urgent regulatory deadlines, a clear gap between free informational tools and enterprise suites, and a product that is genuinely buildable in two weeks. The US patchwork alone creates demand, but the EU Pay Transparency Directive dropping in 30 days makes this window especially sharp. The risk is real (rules maintenance, accuracy liability), but manageable with conservative design and clear disclaimers. SMBs that post remote jobs and hire across state lines are the sweet spot. They need compliance tooling but cannot justify $10K/year for Trusaic. A $29/month tool that takes five minutes to use is an easy sell when the alternative is a $10,000 fine per non-compliant posting in New York.
Strong timing with two major regulatory deadlines converging. The gap between free compliance checkers and enterprise suites is wide open for a $29/month tool that just works. Rules maintenance is the long-term cost, but the initial build is fast and the urgency is real. If you ship before the EU directive hits June 7, you catch the panic wave.