A viral confrontation at a Canadian Costco has reignited the heated debate over receipt checks. The widely shared video has thrust a key conflict into the spotlight: the distinct legal grounds that membership-based warehouses like Costco have for these policies, compared to ordinary retailers.
TikTok user RakeshNDutt, operating under the handle @rakeshndutt, filmed an encounter with Costco staff after he attempted to leave the store without presenting his receipt. The video, which rapidly gained traction, has been viewed over 249,000 times since its publication, featuring a text overlay that dramatically states: “Costco staff illegally detain us again over a receipt.” The clip depicts the TikToker pushing his cart past an employee who was conducting routine receipt verification. As RakeshNDutt tried to exit, both the worker and a manager intervened, requesting his receipt. He refused to stop, asserting, “no, it’s already been talked about.”
Costco, a prominent membership-only warehouse club, maintains a clear policy regarding receipt verification. According to its official website, “It is standard practice at all our warehouse locations to verify purchase receipts when customers exit our buildings.” This established protocol suggests that the staff’s actions in stopping the shopper, while the subject of the viral video, align with the company’s operational guidelines, even though the specifics of what transpired before filming commenced remain unclear.
The practice of checking receipts at Costco’s exits is rooted in specific anti-theft and inventory management strategies. Business Insider reported that Costco employees are trained to look for four key markers on a receipt during these checks. These markers are designed to ensure that transactions are accurately processed and that customers are neither overcharged nor undercharged for their purchases.
Among these crucial markers is a code located on both the top and bottom of the receipt, which serves to confirm that the receipt was indeed printed on that specific day. Employees also verify an item count to cross-reference against the physical contents of the shopping cart, aiming to prevent any discrepancies in charging. For high-end items, specifically those priced over $300, a supervisor’s initials are required on the receipt, acting as an additional layer of authorization. Finally, large items, such as bulk toilet paper and cases of water, carry written signifiers to ensure that a final visual check includes examining the bottom of the shopping basket, preventing items from being overlooked.
Beyond membership stores, the general legal landscape for retailers offers customers more latitude. For most establishments, staff members typically lack the authority to impede a customer’s exit if they decline to show a receipt. Such actions are generally permissible only if employees harbor a “reasonable suspicion of shoplifting.” Without this specific justification, detaining a customer for merely refusing a receipt check is not legally supported in many retail environments.
However, the rules are significantly different for membership-based stores like Costco and Sam’s Club. When an individual opts to purchase a membership, they simultaneously enter into a contractual agreement with the store. This contract, in most cases, is understood to contain clauses that grant the store the right to verify purchases by checking receipts before customers leave the premises. Consequently, under the explicit terms of such an agreement, membership stores may assert the right to detain any individual who declines to present their receipt at the point of exit.
Attorney Amy Loftsgordon, a legal expert from the University of Denver Sturm College of Law, has clarified this distinction. Loftsgordon notes that for membership stores, “Under the terms of your agreement, the store doesn’t need to suspect that you engaged in shoplifting to detain you at the door.” This contractual underpinning means that a refusal to show a receipt at these specific types of retailers could lead to consequences, ranging from temporary detainment in accordance with the membership agreement to the potential revocation of membership privileges.
Adding another layer of complexity to the issue is the legal concept known as Shopkeeper’s Privilege, which is recognized in the majority of U.S. states, including Michigan. This privilege generally empowers store owners or their employees to temporarily detain a customer if they possess a “reasonable belief that shoplifting has occurred.” While refusing to show a receipt is not inherently unlawful, legal experts such as Cooley law professor Tonya Krause-Phelan suggest that such a refusal could inadvertently create a scenario where store personnel develop the requisite “reasonable belief” of shoplifting, thereby justifying temporary detainment under Shopkeeper’s Privilege.
The widespread implementation of anti-theft measures, including intensified receipt and bag checks, has continued to elicit strong reactions from shoppers across the country. Many consumers express significant frustration, arguing that these security policies, while aimed at curbing retail theft, ultimately detract from the overall customer experience. Retailers like Walmart and Target have increasingly adopted these measures, leading to a surge of complaints.
Social media platforms have become a primary venue for shoppers to voice their grievances. Numerous individuals have taken to these platforms to air their frustrations, with one shopper lamenting, “I’m tired of them trying to check my receipt at the door at Walmart.” Another expressed dismay over long lines at receipt check stations, stating, “That line was super long and that lady looked at me crazy when I walked right past her. I’m not about to let you look at my ticket for some ground beef.” These anecdotes highlight a perception among many consumers that these checks are an inconvenience that disrupts the flow of their shopping experience.
The sentiment extends to calls for more active resistance against these policies. Some shoppers have publicly urged others to consider “boycotting the self-checkout lanes at Costco” as a response to perceived issues with the customer experience, suggesting that stores should instead invest in hiring more employees. On social media platforms like X, formerly known as Twitter, advice has circulated, telling shoppers, “The only place that can make you show a receipt is Costco because you agree to it when you buy a membership. We should be refusing to check/scan receipts at all other stores. They can’t legally hold you in the store because you refuse. So, refuse.”
Returning to the viral incident, RakeshNDutt’s use of the phrase “illegally detain us again” in his video overlay indicates that this may not have been an isolated event for him. The hashtags included in his TikTok post, such as #Profiling, #Discrimination, #HumanRights, and #CivilRights, suggest a deeper concern beyond a mere refusal to show a receipt. These tags imply a belief that the incident may be linked to broader issues of unfair treatment or targeted actions, elevating the discussion beyond standard retail policy.
For customers who find themselves in a situation at a non-membership store where they are stopped without reasonable suspicion of shoplifting, Attorney Amy Loftsgordon provides clear guidance. She advises that without such suspicion, it would be “inappropriate for any store employee to stand in the way of a customer, use abusive language or physically detain a shopper.” In these circumstances, Loftsgordon recommends that individuals remain calm and promptly request to speak with a manager, acknowledging that while “most employees should be aware that customers cannot be detained for failing to show a receipt,” this knowledge is “not always the case” among all staff members.
Despite the legal complexities and potential frustrations, Loftsgordon also offers a pragmatic perspective on the benefits of compliance, even when not legally required at certain stores. She explains that “Stores do spot checks to ensure that the cashier put all of your items in your cart, and to keep costs down by deterring shoplifting.” From this viewpoint, she concludes that “undergoing a receipt check ultimately benefits you and might be worth a little hassle,” suggesting a cooperative approach can serve the broader interests of both consumers and retailers by helping to control costs and maintain inventory accuracy.
The ongoing debate surrounding receipt checks underscores a complex interplay between customer expectations, contractual obligations, and retailers’ efforts to combat theft and manage operations. While membership stores like Costco operate under distinct agreements that may allow for receipt verification and potential detainment upon refusal, general retailers typically require reasonable suspicion of shoplifting to legally stop a customer. Navigating this landscape requires shoppers to be informed of their rights and obligations, fostering a better understanding between consumers and the businesses they frequent in an evolving retail environment.
