RIAA Shakedowns Similar To Big Retailers Shaking Down Suspected Shoplifters
from the not-so-different dept
We've talked in the past about how both DirecTV and the RIAA have used a borderline legal version of a shakedown to get people to pay them money, without them having a chance to defend themselves. The way the process works is simple. They come up with a mere slip of evidence that the person might be guilty, and then send them threatening letters offering not to sue if they merely pay up first. With DirecTV, the company used names of people who had bought smart card writing devices, even though such devices have perfectly legitimate uses beyond pirating satellite TV signals. With the RIAA, obviously, it was through a list of (often questionable) IP addresses. By using this method, many people pay rather than face a lawsuit -- even if they're innocent. They recognize that the cost of a lawsuit is much worse than just paying the settlement charge. In the organized crime world, this is generally known as a shakedown, or if you prefer, extortion. Yet, for some reason, it's legal when these businesses do it.And, it turns out, the RIAA and DirecTV are not alone in doing so. Perhaps they even learned the practice by watching how big retailers approach shoplifters. Reader Josh sent in a Wall Street Journal article showing how many large retail chain stores are using a very similar process against suspected shoplifters. In the most egregious case, Home Depot detained a guy it thought was stealing drill bits, but dropped the effort after he showed them a receipt. A few weeks later, though, he received a letter demanding $3,000, which was later raised to $6,000. Admittedly, the amount is quite high there as the law firm that handled the case later admitted to a typo in entering the amount -- but the process seems quite similar to the RIAA/DirecTV process. It doesn't matter if the person is guilty or innocent. You just ask them to pay up or threaten them with a lawsuit. The retailers all insist this is a necessary process since shoplifting costs them so much -- but it's hard to see how forcing people to pay up without a chance to defend themselves is ever right, no matter how much shoplifting costs these retailers.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: extortion, retailers, shakedowns
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gee...
The retailers all insist this is a necessary process since shoplifting costs them so much...
Well let's see if they accuse me of stealing $20 worth of drill bits and offer a settlement of $3,000 to prevent a $X,XXX,XXX lawsuit you have to ask where that money goes. We know that even diamond tipped drill bits aren't worth $X,XXX,XXX and that once a case goes to court the lawyers (in this case Home Depot's legal department) take the lion's share of the profit if they win. I honestly think that all these threats and lawsuits are a vicious case of monkey see monkey do. A few lawyers got away with so now they all want a piece of the action.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just pretend to steal things, its a lot more fun..
Hassle the clerks or security on your way out, and when they stop you raise all hell when they can't find anything on you.
Then sue them. ;)
Or to put it in a simpler format:
1.) Pretend to shoplift
2.) Get searched/sued; then counter sue.
3.) Profit!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just pretend to steal things, its a lot more f
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just pretend to steal things, its a lot mo
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=hxgNKNEtk18
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just pretend to steal things, its a lot more f
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just pretend to steal things, its a lot mo
If at any time you lose line of sight on that person (mind you several people can be watching them and the chain of custody can change to them as long as you are in communication with them and you both have LOS on that individual before you lose sight.) then you cannot apprehend them without actually seeing the items in their possession.
Some people place things in their own bags with the intention of paying for them (granted it is not in good taste). You have to give them the chance to pay before apprehending them. Once they cross the point of no return, then they have shoplifted by the legal definition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Just pretend to steal things, its a lo
A member of my family has worked as a loss prevention manager for the one of nation's largest retailers and says that the law varies from state to state. In my state you have committed an offense when you conceal merchandise and can arrested for that act alone.
Some people place things in their own bags with the intention of paying for them (granted it is not in good taste).
Not only is it "not in good taste", plenty of people have been arrested for it. And if the arrest is done by an off duty police office then no other evidence is needed because their testimony is "gold" in court. Also, if the apprehension is made by a cop then the store has no legal liability even if something does go wrong because the cop is considered on-duty as soon as he begins law enforcement activity. That's why stores like to hire them for security if they can afford them (they're expensive).
You have to give them the chance to pay before apprehending them.
Nope. Once they have committed the crime the deed is done.
At least that's the way it is in my state.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Just pretend to steal things, its a lo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just pretend to steal things, its a lot mo
shop·lift (shŏp'lĭft')
v. shop·lift·ed, shop·lift·ing, shop·lifts
v. intr.
To steal merchandise from a store that is open for business.
v. tr.
To steal (articles or an article) from a store that is open for business.
So.... What universe do you live in where hiding merchandise and relocating it is stealing? Because if you take that idea to court, you lose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Just pretend to steal things, its a lo
In the past 15 years, there have been a number of legal prescedents created that complicate the definition of "shoplifting".
It was so difficut and laborous that for a good 5 years, WalMart refused to prosecute shoplifters alltogether.
Granted, different companies have different standards. However, due to many civil cases in the past 15 years, many companies have employed the process mentioned above. What you outlined the generally accepted practice based on reccomendations from the NRF or National Retail Federation.
So to qualify as shoplifting, and be prosecutable, the person has to "deliberately attempt to exit the store without paying". This is usually defined as “passing the door or cash register with said unpaid merchandise”.
As mentioned, maintaining line of sight is a necessity- an interesting statistic is: 40% of the time, when a person is stopped at the door, they actually don’t have the merchandise— they possibly put it on a shelf before right before leaving. If line of sight is not maintained throughout the entire time the product is covered, pocketed, etc, and the person is stopped at the door without the merchandise, a huge legal grey area emerges and the store could be liable for false acquisition, possible defamation of character, and should things escalate, false imprisonment.
So shoplifting isn't the plain vanilla dictionary term you provided above. In fact, most loss prevention teams focus on internal theft because it's so hard to prosecute the external theft.
If your curious, let's just say it was fun being a part of an understaffed ops team for a 1000-store retailer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Just pretend to steal things, its
One of my all time favorite busts was when serial shoplifting groups went store to store for 5 days hitting multiple computer stores a day. We got a heads up from one of our other stores that they had just been hit and they were going to hit us that night. They were taking (at the time) top of the line geforce II cards and other high dollar peripherals.
Once we had prepped for them, they hit us and with great speed and accuracy our management team fled the building and trapped the getaway car full of products from all of the other stores they hit. My LP team (we always dressed in plain clothes and looked really grungy) decided to help the guys on the inside pack up their stuff and as we got them to the door, we ran them off to the LP office (door was in the foyer between the internal and external doors) where officers were waiting patiently.
Since we worked with the local police I made sure that I attended all hearings and appeared in court as a witness on a regular basis. I never lost a case because of this. The reason most of the chain stores can never seem to get a conviction isn't because they can't. It's because they won't. they never go to hearings, or even make an attempt to work with the police. Most store managers think LP is a joke and that they can use their budget to piss away on company parties for the losers that are robbing them blind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Just pretend to steal things, its a lo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My country tis of thee?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Killing Cops
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He was asked for 3K because Home Depot said they had made an error and thought the guy had stolen property worth 1,009.99 instead of 9.99. Florida allows stores to recover triple the amount of goods stolen.
Is this the country of your Grandfather? No, and thats probably a good thing. If it were, they probably would have just kicked this guys ass and instead of trying to help Iraq we would just kill everyone there (which really isn't all that bad a thing.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Last I checked you were doing a pretty good job of killing over there and let's be really honest here you've not helped anyone but yourselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Corp Cops = Keystone Cops
And Home Despot security put the guy in handcuffs ! ... wtf
"I don't have to show you any stinkin' badges!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Better TV from Malone-Led DirecTV
I thought something was up when they bought that building in the Tech Center.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a.tadd2fOVGA&refer=home
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
= NO $$ FOR RIAA IN JULY 2008 =
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
USA today - what's going on? USA vs Sweden
What's going on in USA - the land of Freedom and Justice?
Here in our little northern country Sweden a man is innocent and doesn't have to pay a single dime before he has has had the chance to have his day in the court. The taxpayers pay for every expense until the verdict comes. After the verdict the guilty part have to pay, and in this case with the innocent 'drill bits' man, the accusing part (Home Depot) would have to pay the costs for the trial, etc.
This means that no organisation or company can scare an innocent Swede to pay!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No chance to defend themselves? What, are people so afraid of a letter and a threat that you consider that not being able to defend themselves? Whats wrong with ignoring the letter? Whats wrong with going to court to have your say? Wouldn't that be defending yourself?
Is your America so afraid that actually having to defend yourself is so bad? Are you so afraid that you wouldn't even venture to do that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eh, a little overdone
It is extremely unusual when a retailer accuses someone of shoplifting because they spot merchandise on them , like the drill bits - without actually *witnessing* the taking of the drill bits off the shelf. I mean, what contractor walks into Home Depot who doesn't have some piece of hardware on them?
For example, in Frys department store they check your bags, but what most people don't know is that in the case you have unpaid merchandise in your bag with other paid merchandise, they just apologize to you and have them ring it up. Its happened to me ($400 in missing ringups) and they never accused me of anything.
As the article mentions, shoplifting is a $40B problem, and because of the cost of going to court, even the *retailers* can't afford to prosecute. Also, some states are actually *mandating* that they offer a settlement first.
The whole system makes perfect sense - and yes I think its totally appropriate for the letters to warn of the consequences of losing in court - because they are real.
The fact of the matter is that sometimes innocent people have to go to court to prove their innocence. That's our system. The settlement is not intended for the innocent, if you aren't guilty don't take it. And yes, its actually a great deal for the guilty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Eh, a little overdone
"The fact of the matter is that sometimes innocent people have to go to court to prove their innocence. That's our system. The settlement is not intended for the innocent, if you aren't guilty don't take it. And yes, its actually a great deal for the guilty."
The problem with these settlement letters, just as in RIAA type cases, is that it will cost the innocent more to pay for a lawyer and fight it out to prove their innocence than to just pay the settlement amount.
I have no trouble with a retail store sending a settlement letter to someone for adequate damages in a civil suit IF and only if they have been convicted of the criminal charge.
It's the "assumed-guilty-so-pay-up-or-else" mentality I have a problem with, whether it is RIAA or Home Depot, or anyone else. It is simply extortion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
shakedown
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
shakedown
Actually, you don't know what you're talking about. You might want to read up on shoplifting laws and educate yourself before making comments like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How about a counter suit in small claims court? That is easy to do and doesn't require a lawyer. You think Home Depot wants to have to send someone to small claims court?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gee, the guy in the article must be a fool, because thats exactly what he did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RIAA shakedown
Government, even though this was a felony, stood by and did nothing. Worse, in the end, certain constitutional rights all American's have were taken in confidential agreement.
Government has permitted this crime by doing nothing to enforce criminal laws violated by employees. The bigger problem here is when people now view there own government as one willing to enforce laws when it suits large corporations. Government can no longer ask anything of me until they investigate the crime committed against me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]