Will live facial recognition technology help retailers crack down on theft?

According to the British Retail Consortium (BRC), retailers in the UK have spent £1.8bn combating the rise in retail crime since the pandemic. In its annual crime survey, the BRC found that customer theft rose by more than 20% to £2bn, taking the total cost of crime – including prevention – to nearly £4.2bn.

Supermarket giant Sainsbury’s revealed plans last month to trial live facial recognition (LFR) technology in two of its stores, in an attempt to reduce incidents such as theft and assault. This follows Asda’s trial of LFR in five stores back in April.

The technology has also been used by the Metropolitan Police, including at events such as Notting Hill Carnival earlier this year. However, its use raises significant privacy and ethical questions – and it remains unclear how effective it will be in actually reducing crime.

Why is it being trialled?

Since the pandemic, retailers have introduced a range of measures to get a handle on the rise in retail crime. A BRC spokesperson says most stores now have a security guard,  often equipped with a body camera, while more products are being locked in cabinets or fitted with anti-theft tags. Items once considered “high-value”, such as steak or electronics, now include everyday goods like salmon, coffee and olive oil.

The scale and type of retail crime have changed dramatically in recent years. The BRC reported over 20 million incidents in 2023–24. According to the trade body, the UK is seeing more people “stealing to order” – stealing goods requested by others –  as well as organised gangs targeting stores around the country.

This increased professionalism has forced retailers to take stronger preventative measures.

Matthew Hattersley, commercial partner at law firm Clarion, says LFR could help prevent repeat offences. “Retailers see this technology as one way to deter repeat offenders, protect staff and customers, and reduce losses where traditional measures such as CCTV or security staff have proved insufficient,” he says.

Supermarkets already use similar technology to track customer movement and optimise layouts. Tesco’s GetGo stores, for instance, build a “unique skeleton outline” of each shopper to monitor what they pick up – removing the need for tills.

What are the issues?

The main risks concern data protection and privacy. Hattersley says retailers must demonstrate that using such intrusive technology is lawful, proportionate and necessary to prevent crime. They must also be transparent – usually via clear signage –  so customers understand that facial recognition is in use and how their data will be processed.

There is also a moral question about whether people with previous convictions should be allowed to live free from constant monitoring. Just because someone has broken the law does not mean they will reoffend –  and some might argue they deserve to shop without scrutiny.

Beyond privacy, there are equality risks. Facial recognition technology has been shown to be less accurate for some demographic groups, raising concerns about bias and unfair treatment. Misidentification could also lead to innocent shoppers being wrongly stopped.

Human rights law protects people’s right to privacy even in public-facing spaces. “Unless retailers can demonstrate strong justification and safeguards, they risk challenges under both data protection and human rights law,” Hattersley adds.

Some critics also warn about the growing sense of surveillance in everyday life. “Beyond legality, supermarkets need to consider public trust. Customers may feel uncomfortable if everyday shopping starts to feel like border control,” Hattersley says. Trials of such technology must balance personal freedom with the right of business owners to protect their goods.

Hattersley does not see LFR as a silver bullet. Determined offenders may adapt – by obscuring their faces, for instance – and databases will require collaboration between retailers to avoid offenders simply moving to new targets.

“Each expansion raises the same tension: does the security benefit outweigh the privacy trade-off? While the public tends to accept privacy intrusions when linked to safety, whether they will tolerate it for everyday, relatively minor offences remains to be seen,” he says.

What else can be done?

For some retailers, LFR presents too many legal and moral grey areas – not to mention its high cost, which may make it unattainable for smaller businesses. The BRC argues that much of the responsibility lies with the police, who need to be more responsive to retail crime.

The trade body says the industry is stuck in a “vicious cycle”: a lack of police response makes retailers less likely to report incidents, which in turn discourages further policing.

It also wants the police to escalate incidents appropriately to demonstrate that retail theft has real consequences. “It needs to be really clear that there are consequences. The police will attend if you are stealing, and you will be dealt with accordingly – that’s the missing piece at the moment,” says the BRC spokesperson.

The debate around LFR extends beyond retail. If the trials prove effective, the technology could spread more widely – unless public pushback or tighter regulation intervenes. While on the surface it may seem like a foolproof solution, it could just as easily prove costly and ineffective, damaging customer trust in the process.