It’s Sunday morning, time for some thought about public policy.

The Consumerist reports of a fellow who purchased some items from a large tech retailer and decided to do the unthinkable, leave after paying for his purchase.  The problem was that the store, TigerDirect, had a policy to check receipt of customers on the way out the door.

Let us dispose of the obvious issue first.  Checking receipts on the way out the door has become a fairly common practice in big box type stores, with lots of people going in and out, to prevent theft.  There’s nothing wrong with stores doing what they can to prevent shoplifting (which costs us all) and showing your receipt to the security guard/retiree/former gang member just isn’t too much of a burden.  In other words, what’s the big deal?

Here’s the big deal:  Stores and businesses are routinely imposing “policies” that conflict with the law and the legal rights of individuals, to the point where many are committing crimes.  If you or I commit a crime, perhaps we would be prosecuted and, perhaps, we would go to jail. 

In the Consumerist story, the individual was detained for failure to show receipt. Not for shoplifting, as there was no basis to believe he had done anything wrong except refuse to comply with the receipt showing policy.  Yet he was detained by the store security guard and publicly abused by the store manager.

What did the State’s attorney have to say about it?  “I called the States Attorney’s office for my county and spoke to a prosecutor who “said charges would not be forthcoming.” Basically, his explanation was that I wasn’t detained long enough for him to bother.”  Fair enough.  Allocation of scarce resources dictates that choices have to be made, and it was likely that this wasn’t the biggest crime in the county.

But the underlying problem is one of far larger magnitude that a brief detention.  While lawyers argue daily about overreaching by police and government, the overreaching that most impacts regular people is by stores and businesses that confuse their self-serving policy with the force of law.  They believe they are a law unto themselves, and have no responsibility to comport themselves in accordance with the rules that apply to everyone else.

What was remarkable about the TigerDirect incident is that it involved a physical detention.  This happens, though mostly to minority shoppers, with some regularity but fails to make anyone’s radar unless it results in a bust.  What of those who are detained and then released?  These are the forgotten folks, just like those nice people stopped for DWB on the New Jersey Turnpike who don’t happen to have drugs or guns in their car.  We never hear about these stops under the no harm, no foul rule.  Of course, you might feel differently about it if you are the person being stopped for no reason.

Many years ago, I shared an office with a firm that did corporate work.  One day, a lawyer came into my office to show me a “limited warranty” he had just drafted.  It was comical in that it was so egregiously in violation of a half dozen consumer protection laws (even back then, when consumer protection was a mere twinkle in a legislator’s eye).  So I said to him, “You have got to be kidding, This is awful.”  He laughed at me.  Stupid young lawyer.  Of course it breaks a half dozen laws, but 90% of the people who read it will accept it and that means we just cut our client’s refunds by 90%. 

He was right.  I was stupid.  I thought that businesses, like people, should try to do the right thing.  What was I thinking?

Since then, I have been attuned to abuse of the law by business, and it has bugged me ever since.  People at the top come up with “policies” that work for them and protect their interests.  They hand them down to the people at the bottom, who accept these policies as if they are the word of God.  Should we expect the security guard at TigerDirect to know the law on detention and false imprisonment?  What about kidnapping? 

It’s ridiculous to argue with the people at the bottom, the guards, the customer service reps, the cashiers, because they can’t possibly know right from wrong, and they are just doing their job.  If they want another paycheck next week, they will enforce the businesses’ policies to the death, regardless of whether they violate the law.

One of my personal favorite “policies” relates to returns and refunds at a store.  Often, the store’s policy is printed on the back of the receipt given upon completion of the transaction, meaning that you have no notice that you can’t return an item until after you’ve purchased it.  To add insult to policy, the receipts are often unreadable, but that’s an ink issue rather than a policy issue, unless it is done purposefully to make sure you never see the offending policy.  I wouldn’t put it beyond some stores to do exactly that.

Another “policy” fav is when the cashier asks for your name as you make a cash purchase.  If you say no, most stores today will just let it slide, but some still insist that they can’t sell you their goods unless you provide a name and address.  “The register won’t work unless you tell me,” I’ve been told.  So, I tell them I’m Richard Milhous Nixon.  The young ones don’t even blink.

The last time I ranted about matters such as this, someone commented (appropriately), “So, what do you propose we do about it?”  Good question.  One answer is that we all stop shopping at stores that violate the law, but then who can live without Victoria Secrets underwear?  I mean, really. 

But this time I do have an answer.  Isn’t this why states have attorneys general?  Are they not the peoples’ lawyer?  It’s time that the guys in the capital who are charged with enforcing all those great laws that legislatures pass to protect the consumer and control the dealings of businesses who enjoy the largesse of our states to earn their keep.  If they have a consumer protection bureau, call them and complain.  If they don’t, call them and complain that they need one. 

When some kid answers the phone there and opines that he doesn’t think enforcement of a particular law is worthy of his time, explain to him gently, using small words, that your $2, combined with everyone else’s $2, comes out to a lot of $2.  Would it be okay with him if you stole $2,000,000?  If not, why is it okay if a large retailer does it?

There are many complaints about class action lawyers who sue corporations for trivial offenses that affect millions of people.  The millions of people end up with squat, while the lawyers make a fortune (not that there’s anything wrong with that).  But they fill the void of consumer (or shareholder) protection by serving as private attorneys general.  If it offends you that they exist, then demand that your duly elected attorney general get off his butt and do his job. 

I bet that most business would change their policy after a nice phone call from the AG telling them that they can’t do whatever they are doing.  A reminder that their “policy” doesn’t trump the law is going to address a ton of these problems.  On the other hand, when government’s response to violations of the law is “it’s not worth our time,” the message to businesses is clear:  You’re the boss.  Do whatever works best for you and the law be damned.  Not the message I want sent.