Ridge Runner Chronicles: ‘Target’ has become the target
PROTECTED CONTENT
If you’re a current subscriber, log in below. If you would like to subscribe, please click the subscribe tab above.
Username and Password Help
Please enter your email and we will send you a password reset link.
By Bill Hoagland
Retail theft has become such a problem that retailers in some parts of the country have had to permanently close stores. In San Francisco, for example, shoplifters are walking out of stores carrying merchandise worth hundreds of dollars without any attempt by store employees to confront them. In fact, employees are prohibited from confronting them because the potential liability for store owners is simply too great. And confrontations with shoplifters are getting more violent as time goes on.
As a major retailer, Target is one of those companies seriously impacted by shoplifting. To deal with the shoplifting, Target has tried to put merchandise under lock and key, but shoppers—even the honest ones—hate it. So Target has developed a new strategy to deal with shoplifters. Target now uses high-tech facial recognition cameras to catch shoplifters but there is an additional twist to this; there is no immediate confrontation even when the video clearly shows that a theft has just occurred. Instead, Target waits until the cumulative value of the items stolen by a specific repeat shoplifter reaches a threshold amount sufficient to constitute a felony and then they prosecute. But in order to effectively identify the shoplifters, all customers are video-taped with these facial recognition cameras as soon as they enter the store. And surprise, surprise: these facial recognition cameras are effective in helping to identify and prosecute shoplifters who routinely come into Target and steal.
But now Target has become the target. That’s because two class-action lawsuits have been filed in Chicago by Target customers claiming that Target’s use of surveillance videos violates the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) because Target never advised its customers that they were being video-taped and because Target never received written consent from each customer that they could be video-taped while they are shopping. The civil penalty prescribed by the BIPA is insanely high: a penalty of $1,000 per incident if it were done “negligently” and $5,000 per incident if it were done “intentionally”. (Frankly, it is hard to imagine that these episodes are anything but intentional.) That means that Target could become liable to a particular customer for up to $25,000 and attorney fees if they simply entered a Target store five times in a week without making any purchases. That is clearly a losing proposition for Target (even if the customer steals nothing during the visits).
But let’s take this a step further. Let’s assume a particular Target store in Illinois using facial recognition surveillance videos has 300 customers a day. If every one of those customers joins one of these class action lawsuits, and each customer is entitled to receive $5,000 for their one-day exposure on the facial recognition video, we are talking $1,500,000 for each day that customers come into that store. Then if you multiply that daily figure by the number of days in the month…well, you get the idea. This is a plaintiff’s lawyer’s dream. It also could mean the end of Target and all other big box retailers in Illinois that are utilizing facial recognition surveillance systems to cut down on retail theft.
Most of us don’t like surveillance tapes but most of us aren’t shoplifters either; we have nothing to hide. And let’s face it; we are all on surveillance tapes all day long whether we realize it or not; in today’s world, that’s how crimes are being solved because no one is willing to be an eyewitness. The Illinois legislature needs to make significant revisions to the BIPA or we will be doing all of our shopping out of state or on the internet because retailers won’t be able to afford to do business in Illinois.
Note: I don’t know if all Target stores in Illinois are using the facial recognition surveillance system. I am only recounting what is alleged in these lawsuits relating to Chicago area Target stores.
• Bill Hoagland has practiced law in Alton for more than 50 years, but he has spent more than 70 years hunting, fishing and generally being in the great outdoors. His wife, Annie, shares his love of the outdoor life. Much of their spare time is spent on their farm in Calhoun County. Bill can be reached at [email protected].
