The latest plan hatched by Loblaw, seemingly to test the levels of villainy the country’s leading grocer can get away with, is receipt scanners in supermarkets. This is an automation of a similar attempt last year when it posted signs warning customers, “Please be prepared to show your receipt upon exiting to validate and maintain inventory accuracy.” The policy earned it public scorn. Within weeks, the signs disappeared.
That program now seems like a quaint anachronism. At least it employed people (assuming security guards would inspect receipts). The updated method, currently being tested in southern Ontario locations, is a receipt scanner that customers must use after their purchase but before leaving the self-checkout aisle; if they don’t, they’re obstructed by security gates. A Loblaw spokesperson told CBC News, without citing any sources, that the rise of retail theft is linked to organized crime.
Forcing customers to prove they haven’t stolen something treats us all like suspects. It’s another indication that this company has enough market control it doesn’t need to care how its customers feel.
But is it legal? “To avoid the prospect of being sued, successfully, for false imprisonment, a business needs at a minimum to have reasonable grounds to believe that property is being stolen or has been stolen,” says Gerald Chan, a partner at Toronto law firm Stockwoods who specializes in cases of digital privacy.
“You need the reasonable grounds before you detain, not after you detain. A security guard can’t stop every person leaving the store to ask them questions. And I think the same is true of a system like having gates up that don’t open unless you flash a receipt.”
If the gates stop all customers leaving through the self-checkout aisle, that seems to suggest any person using self-checkout has given reason to believe that they may have stolen something. If I buy a banana at self-checkout, I have to prove I haven’t stolen it before I can leave?
Chan believes that, while most customers don’t have the resources or time to pursue a lawsuit against a large public company, the company is nonetheless exposing itself to being sued for false imprisonment.
“They would have to argue that the combination of those two things — that you used the self-checkout and yet you didn’t have a receipt on you — amounts to a reasonable probability that you’ve stolen something.”
So what is the average Ontarian to do when confronted with one of these gates?
“The practical answer is you should just comply and decide later if you want to pursue a claim,” says Chan. “What are you going to do, jump the gate?”
I agree. No one should get arrested just to prove a point. But I reject the premise that we should allow a business to test the boundaries of the law by treating customers like suspects. We should not have to prove our innocence before leaving a grocery store.
I hope this is also challenged by the Competition Bureau. Would any chain without this much control of the market (Loblaw sells 29 per cent groceries sold in Canada) expect its clientele to tolerate such a draconian measure? This probably won’t affect customer loyalty, but only because customers have so little choice.
Perhaps the shortage of viable alternatives is a marketing opportunity for Loblaw’s few competitors. Sobeys could try “We think of our customers as our community, not as thieves.” Or how about “Everyday low prices, with no dystopian requirement that you prove your innocence” for Metro? Yeah, too wordy. It’s more likely these competitors are watching how this all unfolds to decide whether they should do the same thing.
Donate