
They’re Falsely Accused of Shoplifting, but Retailers Demand Penalties - electricslpnsld
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/17/business/falsely-accused-of-shoplifting-but-retailers-demand-they-pay.html
======
waterbear

      Mr. McDonald said that if Ms. Thompson’s daughter took 
      the groceries without scanning them properly, it was 
      by mistake. Video surveillance, reviewed by The New 
      York Times, shows her daughter trying to scan and 
      rescan groceries at the checkout machine for about 17 
      minutes.
    

I really have a mixed impression of self checkout lanes, as they currently
exist. Ten years ago, if you had asked me if they sound like a good idea, I
have responded with an emphatic yes.

But experiencing them on perhaps a monthly basis these days, I’ve developed an
overwhelming urge to avoid them at all costs. And not because of incidents as
described by this article.

It’s reached the point that even when I’m holding a single item, and there are
five people with full shoppings carts in front of me, I get annoyed at people
who suggest self checkout to me. I know damn well that there’s a self checkout
lane, and it’s my time to waste. I’m waiting in precisely the lane I intend to
be in.

Even though I totally agree that working a cash register should very nearly be
an anachronistic job at this point, self checkout lanes are a horrid
abomination in their modern form. Waiting for these machines to prompt me
through the task of ringing my own items up is so far from my own experiences
of actually working as a cashier, that I shake my head in dismay nearly every
time.

When I used to work register at no less than ten other jobs, I could rip
through a collection of 20 or 30 items in a minute or less (as long as
barcodes or price tags were legible), and accept payment as fast as you could
hand it to me. But self checkout prompts. Stops. Waits. Prompts. Stops. Fails.
Back to square one. Prompt. Wait... Wait... Prompt. And so on.

Why is it so bad? Why is it worse than vending machines? So much worse. And
restaraunts are trying to pull the same trick. Self service touchscreens leave
you sitting at tables, unserved for half an hour, until you walk over to the
bar and complain.

The future is hell.

~~~
TeMPOraL
The key gem I remember from an UI/UX rant posted here recently[0] is this:
computer should wait on humans, not the other way around. This is what I hate
about self-checkout machines. The process is infuriatingly slow. I could get
out there in 1/10th of the time if the stupid machine wasn't so full of modal
dialogs, talking, and if not for the weird delays in processing of the scanned
barcode. Just let me scan items as fast as I can pick them up from my basket,
and then press a button and pay.

I can't imagine how you can fail so spectacularly at your job as to design the
self-checkout experience, so I'm forced to believe that all those issues are
there _on purpose_.

\--

[0] -
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17682494](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17682494)
-> [https://brandur.org/interfaces](https://brandur.org/interfaces)

~~~
MrMember
A few years ago Target changed their self checkout machines to be less
infuriating. It doesn't yell at you to place your item in the bagging area and
then yell at you for putting an unexpected item in the bagging area. It lets
you scan items as fast as you want. When I use some other store's self
checkout machines it's a serious step backwards.

~~~
RileyJames
I’ve noticed the same thing with Walmart in Canada. It’s not a bad experience
now.

Although scanning each item individually is still time consuming. Removing
that requirement would be awesome.

------
greggarious
How is this not extortion? Every time I read /r/legaladvice and someone says
"Hey I have proof someone stole X should I tell them pay me back or return it
or I go to the police" and are shouted down that no, threatening to bring in
the police is extortion.

Weird how when a large company wants compensation it's not...

~~~
twblalock
Threatening to file a civil suit is not extortion. If it were, it would be
pretty much impossible to ever send a cease-and-desist letter.

~~~
wavefunction
It can be extortion, if it's a SLAPP

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_publ...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation)

~~~
twblalock
If SLAPP lawsuits were extortion, they would have already been illegal and
anti-SLAPP legislation would not have been necessary. Such legislation is
about preventing companies from using lawsuits to suppress free speech.

------
mnm1
The problem here isn't so much scummy companies like Walmart, which will
always exist and make false accusations, but the police who take those
accusations and without proof make arrests. They are the truly big part of the
problem and need to be reigned in. They know that Walmart and other companies
routinely make false reports, have no evidence, yet are more than happy to
make the arrest based on nothing. Same with judges. And prosecutors who choose
to go ahead with these cases. They are truly the ones to blame for our lack of
a functioning legal system that tries to lock up innocent people based on some
company's bullshit. Let's not pretend that these parties have to enforce these
shitty laws the way they do when there are a billion other more important
priorities: they choose to because they enjoy hurting people and fucking up
people's lives for their own amusement and advancement. If that isn't sick, I
don't know what is. Oh right, Walmart falsely accusing people of shoplifting.
That's a good reason not to shop there alone. On the other hand, when a
retailer refuses to refund money for a product not even delivered, that's just
a civil matter and these same scummy cops won't even take a report. The law
clearly does not apply the same to all parties.

------
dimman
What’s wrong with America? So crazy out of proportion; an alledged $25 theft
may result in police officers arrest you in your home, getting handcuffed,
forced into ”prison” jumpsuit etc. On top of that, stores are allowed to put
lawyers on hunting cash from people no matter if they’ve been proven guilty or
not by the justice system. And they don’t care, nor need to care?

Where’s the sanity and human decency??

~~~
modells
Inverted totalitarianism at work. Paraphrasing a passage from the Bible, of
all books, this one is a good parable of human nature: _From those whom have
nothing, all will be taken; to those that have all, more will be given._

People whom can’t fight back will be abused if there are incentives of the
elite and their functionaries to extract money from these poor... like a
legitimized protection racket by a proverbial Sheriff of Nottingham.

------
js2
I feel that part of being a humane society is that we have to accept that
there's going to be a certain number of people that take advantage. It will
cost the rest of us a bit more.

But I'd rather put up with some cheaters, be they shop lifters, fruadulent
insurance claimers, border crossers, etc, than allow draconian policies like
those outlined in this story.

Further, compared to white collar crime and all the other ways the rich and
powerful are able to "cheat", surely shoplifting is a rounding error.

$0.02 thoughts for a Friday evening.

~~~
raincom
That there are going to be shop lifters, is accepted in the industry. It is
called shrinkage. Every year or every 6 weeks, retailers hire inventory audit
companies to calculate shrinkage.

Some consulting company like McKinsey might have advised big retailers on how
to reduce/recoup the shrinkage. These cease and desist letters, vague laws,
etc are product of that effort.

------
Mathnerd314
Seems similar to the copyright infringement shakedown
[https://torrentfreak.com/us-online-piracy-lawsuits-break-
rec...](https://torrentfreak.com/us-online-piracy-lawsuits-break-record-
numbers-180704/)

I wonder how many other threat letter business models there are.

~~~
greggarious
> _In some states, companies have been able to collect more than the value of
> the allegedly stolen items, up to $1,000 in some instances._

Seems to set up a perverse set of incentives - might be more profitable to
pursue people who steal low ticket items than it is to actually sell them...

~~~
yardstick
Not that I completely agree with the extent of the punishment, but if you only
ever charge the person the amount you would have made from the sale, and don’t
provide any other punishment (eg fine on top, conviction, community service
etc) then there is little to no incentive for anyone to pay for them.

~~~
greggarious
>Not that I completely agree with the extent of the punishment, but if you
only ever charge the person the amount you would have made from the sale, and
don’t provide any other punishment (eg fine on top, conviction, community
service etc) then there is little to no incentive for anyone to pay for them.

I totally see where you're coming from, but IMHO fines are paid to
governments. _Restitution_ is paid to corporations. Subtle but important
difference. It's extremely common in small claims for defendants to be "made
whole" (paid for actual, measurable losses). But you're basically asking for
emotional damages for theft... if someone stole my laptop all I could sue for
is the replacement cost of the laptop and any associated costs (ex: broken car
window).

If you want to fine shoplifters, great. Maybe use that money towards various
social programs - a lot of shoplifters are IV drug users for example.

But don't just hand the fine money to a corporation that will continue to
underpay it's employees to the point their salaries are subsidized by taxpayer
money (food stamps).

------
user5994461
Cannot the court charge wallmart for not showing up to the trial?

They are clearly abusing the justice system. Scaring people into paying, but
never showing up to the trial and letting the court dismiss the case.

Showing up would cost them money. It might even lead them to lose the case or
award damages, given how little evidence they may have sometimes. The whole
procedure is well orchestrated.

------
rootusrootus
Seems awfully one-sided. Perhaps there should be automatic reparation in the
case of mistaken prosecution, at a level that is at least somewhat punitive.
The retailer should feel some incentive to get it right.

~~~
mnm1
How about 1% of that year's revenue. Problem fixed. There should never be a
false accusation by a merchant. This allows up to 100 of these atrocities
before the business goes out of business which is what should happen to
corporations that do this. It's amazing how simple solutions are extremely
effective.

------
staticautomatic
Shockingly, the article says nothing about whether the police or a judge
actually investigated or reviewed any purported evidence prior to the issuance
of the subject arrest warrants.

------
exhilaration
One of the lessons I took from this article is to never go through self-
checkout.

~~~
LanceH
Save your receipts.

~~~
Broken_Hippo
The self-checkouts here have a gate to get out of the store from the self-
checkouts. To get out, you scan the barcode on your receipt.

------
jopsen
It's a amazing that a company selling to consumers dares to use such tactics..
it's bound to back fire and give bad publicity.

I can't believe that scam tactics like this will bring in much money either.
Not compared to the cost of fixing the out publicity issues.

------
jjaredsimpson
I've probably shopped at Walmart less than 10 times in my life. It's probably
because they aren't conveniently located for me. But also they have so much
bad press that I just don't want to be associated with it. At the same time, I
also have the feeling that this will never happen to me so I'm indifferent.

That indifference is a bug in our society. It allows this injustice to be
farmed out to 3rd party law shops using a system designed by corporate
lobbying dollars to harass powerless individuals. Walmart isn't indifferent
and they are mildly evil so the world is made worse by their presence.

------
mjevans
How is this not defamation of character as well as illegal imprisonment for
/mistakenly/ claiming someone is guilty of a crime to the point that they
become INCARCERATED?

------
mtaksrud
Why don’t people use their power as consumers and stop shopping there? I have
never understood why people let large companies walk all over them. Get
organised and get even!

~~~
Broken_Hippo
Because of home economics and lack of affordable choices - sometimes lack of
choices at all. Folks that have some money do make those choices.

If Wal-mart is the cheapest retailer around you and you make $15-$20,000 a
year, they are basically your only option for everyday household goods. Even
if you are saving $20 per month, that's $20. Or perhaps you get more food that
way.

Where I was at in the states, it was the cheapest place. We did have Aldi in
some areas, but one couldn't buy everything there and the opening hours
weren't great. Some areas didn't have this option either. (You can survive on
food at aldi, but aren't going to find underwear and bras there either. Not to
mention the lack of name-brand soaps if you had sensitive skin).

------
plink
Sounds like the prime situation for a counter suit.

~~~
wrs
>...Christian Schreiber, a lawyer who filed a lawsuit in California state
court against Home Depot over the practice. The suit resulted in a settlement
for about 3,500 people...

That’s how it’s supposed to work. More of that should cause companies to take
notice.

------
Paul-ish
Is there a list of companies that agressively use these laws to go after
people?

------
homero
A friend of mine for this extortion letter from Walmart after being let go in
the store, it's pure fear tactics

------
ezoe
DoS attack using the law.

~~~
eropple
The term you're looking for is "barratry".

~~~
raattgift
Not really; barratry is more a DoS on the system of justice (it wastes court
time), however certainly some barrators could focus exclusively on one private
party. Making false complaints to the police is not barratry. Maryland, which
is the one of the States explicitly mentioned in the article, has a specific
and atypical statutory definition[1].

It is hard to be a barrator in modern systems of justice based on English
common law. Defendants of repeated claims by a single claimant can get relief
from the courts, even if the claims aren't strictly frivolous.

In common law a barrator is someone who repeatedly brings frivolous actions to
court, knowing they are frivolous. There are statutory definitions of barratry
as a criminal offence, mainly in several of the States of the U.S.A. The usual
requirements for criminal liability apply, and there is usually a threshold
value for the number of unlawfully-brought actions, so there is ample
opportunity for courts to impose a graduated response.

In most common law jurisdictions, it is essentially impossible to bring a
frivolous lawsuit as licensed persons (lawyers of various types, paralegals)
will generally not risk professional liability, and court clerks generally
have the power to reject proceedings initiated by unlicensed persons if they
are manifestly frivolous. In other jurisdictions, lists of ineligible
litigants are maintained[2] and updated from time to time by the overall
system of justice.

Additionally, most courts usually exercise their power to make a costs order
against someone who still somehow manages to progress frivolous litigation,
usually on an indemnity basis, which can be sufficiently expensive when the
other party or parties has had to hire legal representation that it is
strongly dissuasive. Most potential barrators could not afford to reach the
threshold of criminal liability, because liability for the costs of the court
and defence (and collecting those costs) exceeds their ability to pay.

However, access to relief from the courts is important, so there is generally
a mechanism to allow such people to bring cases which have some significant
probability of succeeding to court nevertheless.

Unfortunately, civil lawsuits are usually settled out of court, so courts may
not see abusive patterns (courts are generally shy to inquire into consensual
agreements between adversarial parties) until a defendant refuses favourable
on-the-steps-of-the-court settlement offers instead opting to reach a final
judgment and a trial on the matter of costs. It's then that a vexatious
litigant that casts its net widely (i.e., filing many dubious different courts
because it can, thanks to corporate scale or whatever) is most likely to be
"discovered" by a court for the first time.

Harassing behaviour by creditors or their collections agents is a different
matter, and _threatening_ to bring obviously frivolous proceedings does not
typically incur criminal liability -- it's only the act of bringing such
proceedings, knowingly and repeatedly, that will reach the threshold of
barratry (where that still exists as a specific offence) or its rough
equivalents. Most "private prosecutions" are those brought by a public body
with the explicit statutory power to do so, where the body is something other
than the usual prosecutor.

Finally, it is exceptionally rare that barratry or vexatious litigation could
escape the domain of private law. Criminal prosecutions are generally brought
by a public authority, and it is exceptionally rare (even in systems where it
is even possible) for a private person to bring a criminal prosecution. It
usually requires permission from the court or a public authority. (Even in the
pre-modern system -- here roughly when professional public prosecutors were
granted absolute discretion over bringing any criminal prosecution -- which
depending on jurisdiction ranges from the 17th to 20th century, a private
prosecutor would still have to seek an indictment, and malicious, frivolous,
or vexatious prosecutions would almost inevitably fail to do so). Threatening
to report innocent behaviour to police, while harassing and not in the public
interest, is not the same as actually engaging in malicious prosecution.

\- --

[1] [https://law.justia.com/codes/maryland/2010/business-
occupati...](https://law.justia.com/codes/maryland/2010/business-occupations-
and-professions/title-10/subtitle-6/10-604/)

[2] [https://www.gov.uk/guidance/vexatious-
litigants](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/vexatious-litigants) \-- all of these
judgments are generally easy enough to find online; an example is
[https://www.infotextmanuscripts.org/vexatiouslitigant/vex_li...](https://www.infotextmanuscripts.org/vexatiouslitigant/vex_lit_at_gen_oneill_appeal_c.html)
\-- not all of them would have been barrators under the common law (before
statute superseded barratry and many other common-law offences in England and
Wales).

