A LAWYER has criticized the legality of receipt checks in certain stores after a woman shared her embarrassing experience with an employee.
Buyers in the US and Canada have called for an end to receipt verification due to negative experiences.
two
two
“This… is not cool,” wrote lawyer Alex Colangelo on X, formerly Twitter.
Colangelo included a screenshot in his tweet of a recent complete blood count article in which a woman, Susan Dennison, shared her experience with a locked cart when leaving a supermarket in Canada.
“I felt like I was ambushed,” Dennison told the outlet about his experience leaving a Loblaw-owned Fortinos store in Ontario.
“She’s badgering me, like, ‘Is it in your wallet? Is it in your pocket?'”
Dennison was only cleared after she produced a receipt for one of her shopping bags.
“It seemed that [it took] forever, with people passing by. It was humiliating,” she said.
Along with the screenshot of Dennison’s experience, Colangelo re-shared a wire he wrote in 2023 discussing the legality of receipt checks in stores.
“Private citizens (store security) have limited powers of arrest and can only detain someone in the process of committing a crime,” Colangelo wrote, citing Canadian law.
“Holding someone against their will who did not commit a crime (even if you had a reasonable belief that they were stealing) could lead to a false imprisonment claim,” he continued.
Colangelo then pointed to a 1976 case in which a woman was leaving a K-mart and was stopped while walking to her vehicle on suspicion of shoplifting.
The woman was awarded $500 in damages after an investigation concluded she did nothing wrong.
Colangelo’s thread then pointed to people suggesting that stores like Costco have a policy of checking receipts when customers leave the store.
“But you entered into a contract with Costco when you signed up as a member, whereby you consented to let them check your receipts,” Colangelo highlighted, citing the Costco website.
Colangelo initially wrote the thread after customers were outraged that Lowblaws was asking to see their receipts.
Loblaws, like Fortinos and also Walmart, are non-affiliated grocery chains, meaning shoppers don’t have a contract like Costco.
“I suspect Loblaws is trying this [receipt checking] with the argument that: (i) they did not force him to stop and show the receipt. They asked politely and you consented; and/or (ii) there was a sign when you entered the store and therefore you consented,” Colangelo wrote.
“The problem is that shoppers may not have seen the sign and may feel compelled to stop if a store employee asks, not realizing they can say no. Either way, there is legal risk for Loblaws,” his thread concluded.
Legality of receipt and detention checks
In an effort to reduce retail crime, stores are increasingly turning to checking receipts as customers leave.
Legally, stores can ask to see a customer’s receipts, and members-only stores have the right to demand such checks if customers agree to the terms and conditions authorizing them.
Many legal professionals have evaluated and reached similar conclusions, warning that all states have specific laws.
Generally speaking, stores have Retailer Privilege laws that allow them to detain a person until authorities arrive when there is reasonable suspicion that a crime, such as robbery, has been committed.
Refusal to provide a receipt is not in itself a reason for a store to detain a customer; she must have additional reasons to suspect a client of criminal activity.
Due to the recent nature of receipt checks, there is little concrete legislation regarding the legality of the practice, as it takes time for the law to catch up with technology.
Setliff Law, PC states that “there is no definitive case law specifically relating to the refusal to present a receipt for purchases.”
For stores that misuse the Retailer Privilege, they may face charges of false imprisonment.
“The primary law that applies to these types of wrongful arrest cases is called ‘False Imprisonment,’” the local Hudson Valley attorney explained. Alex Mainetti.
“Of course, you are not literally arrested, but you are detained by a person who does not have the legal authority to detain you and/or wrongfully detains a client.”
It is likely that as store altercations over receipt checks continue, more lawsuits will occur giving clearer definitions and limits to the legality of receipt checks.
Outrage from some shoppers peaked earlier this year when they began calling for a boycott of Loblaws during the month of May.
Shoppers had hoped to rebel against high food prices and increased safety measures at the supermarket company.
Protesters wanted the store to reduce food prices by an average of 15% and eliminate member-only prices.
“It’s getting ridiculous to just be able to live,” Kelsey Holland, a longtime Loblaws buyer from Ontario, told the Canadian national broadcaster. TVC News.
Additionally, more than 6,000 people signed a petition asking the store to immediately change its receipt verification policy.
Protesters wrote that reaching the goal of at least 9,000 in the petition will put necessary pressure on store leadership to change their policies.
“But if thousands of us flood your inbox, we could increase pressure to revoke the receipt verification policy and send a message that Canadians expect Loblaw to deliver on a higher priority: affordable food prices,” they wrote.
This story originally appeared on The-sun.com read the full story
