{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-23T08:30:41.322Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"cctv","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"contextual","evidence":"","year":"","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":2,"coverage":{"cases":2,"countries":1,"languages":1,"unknownLocation":0,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":0,"regulatory":0,"minors":0,"coreRelations":0,"contextualRelations":2,"mixedRelations":0,"unknownRelations":0,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":0},"countingNote":"Distinct public cases in this selection. People counts apply within individual cases only; cross-case person overlap has not been resolved. No population incidence estimate.","affectedCountNote":"Interpret person counts with affectedCountStatus and the reported effects. Unquantified zeros are placeholders, not a measured zero.","source":"AI incidents","publisher":"NOPE","url":"https://nope.net/incidents","license":"CC BY 4.0"},"incidents":[{"id":"2026-southampton-choudhury-arrested-after-retrospective-facial-recognition-match-milton-keynes-burglary","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"was working at the home he shares with his parents in Southampton in January","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"handcuffed him and held him in custody for nearly 10 hours before releasing him at 2am.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"On 8 January 2026 Mr Alvi Choudhury was arrested on suspicion of a burglary that had occurred 100 miles away from where he was at the time.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"Choudhury is claiming damages against Thames Valley police and Hampshire constabulary, which executed his arrest.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"But the arresting officers from Hampshire Constabulary didn’t want to know.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Alvi Choudhury was arrested at the home he shares with his parents in Southampton on 8 January 2026 on suspicion of a burglary in Milton Keynes, handcuffed and held in custody for nearly 10 hours until released at 2am. Hampshire Constabulary officers carried out the arrest.","causal_attribution":"Event description only. The account comes from Choudhury and his solicitors through the Guardian, Liberty Investigates and a chambers news post. The Thames Valley Police statement quoted by the Guardian treats the arrest as having happened and apologises for the distress caused. The 8 January date appears only in the chambers post (the Guardian says January)."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Thames Valley police had used automated facial recognition software which matched him with footage of a suspect of a £3,000 burglary 100 miles away in Milton Keynes","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"following a retrospective facial recognition match, and was not influenced by racial profiling.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"A week later, after filing a complaint against Thames Valley Police, he found out the full story: he’d been flagged as a possible suspect by an automated facial recognition system.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"UK police forces use an algorithm procured by the Home Office from Cognitec, a German company.","relation":"context","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Thames Valley Police used automated retrospective facial recognition software that matched Choudhury with CCTV footage of a suspect in the Milton Keynes burglary. Choudhury says he learned about a week after the arrest, after filing a complaint, that an automated facial recognition system had flagged him as a possible suspect.","causal_attribution":"The Guardian bases the match on documents shared by Liberty Investigates, which were not inspected. The police spokesperson statement quoted in the same report itself refers to a retrospective facial recognition match. The sources do not state which product, version, threshold or match score applied to this search."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Thames Valley police said the decision to arrest Choudhury was made after a human visual assessment as well.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"A Thames Valley police spokesperson denied the arrest was unlawful and said: “While we apologise for the distress caused to the complainant in this case","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Facial matches should be treated as intelligence, not fact, according to the National Police Chiefs’ Council.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Thames Valley Police told the Guardian that the decision to arrest was made after a human visual assessment as well as the match, denied that the arrest was unlawful and said it was not influenced by racial profiling, and apologised for the distress caused. The Guardian reports the National Police Chiefs’ Council position that facial matches should be treated as intelligence, not fact.","causal_attribution":"A party statement about its own conduct, relayed by the Guardian. It addresses the arrest decision and gives no detail of the match."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"“I was very angry, because the kid looked about 10 years younger than me,” said Choudhury, who wears a beard.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"He offered evidence of work meetings in Southampton on the day of the crime but he was instead taken into custody.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"But Choudhury said officers at the Hampshire police station laughed when he asked: “Does this look anything like me?”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"And he said the Thames Valley police officers who arrived to interview him said “they knew I wasn’t the suspect after looking at footage of the suspect and looking at my picture”.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Choudhury says the man in the CCTV footage looked about 10 years younger than Choudhury and had different features, that he offered evidence of work meetings in Southampton on the day of the burglary, that officers at the Hampshire police station laughed when he asked whether the footage looked like him, and that the Thames Valley Police officers who came to interview him said they knew he was not the suspect after looking at the footage and his picture.","causal_attribution":"First-person account relayed by the Guardian. The CCTV footage and the police interview record were not inspected, and no source independent of Choudhury describes the suspect’s appearance or the interview."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Thames Valley police admitted to Choudhury the arrest “may have been the result of bias within facial recognition technology”.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Thames Valley Police wrote to Choudhury, acknowledging that his arrest “may have been the result of bias within facial recognition technology”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"as the use of facial recognition is already subject to review at a strategic level, I do not feel the need to raise this issue as part of wider organisational learning","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Thames Valley Police wrote to Choudhury that the arrest “may have been the result of bias within facial recognition technology”. An officer also told him that, because facial recognition use is already subject to review at a strategic level, the issue would not be raised as part of wider organisational learning.","causal_attribution":"Quotations from a police letter to Choudhury as relayed by the Guardian and Liberty Investigates. The letter itself was not inspected. The wording is conditional (“may have been”)."},{"id":"c6","status":"disputed","evidence":[{"locator":"“I just assumed that the investigative officer saw that I was a brown person with curly hair and decided to arrest me.”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"their arrest was based on the investigating officers’ own visual assessment that the individual matched the suspect in CCTV footage","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Confusingly, however, the force concluded that his arrest was not a case of racial profiling, because officers had made their own assessment of the images before arresting him.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Whether the facial recognition match or the officers’ own visual assessment led to the arrest decision, and whether bias in the software contributed, is disputed. Choudhury says he assumed the investigating officer saw a brown person with curly hair and decided to arrest him. Thames Valley Police say the arrest rested on the investigating officers’ own visual assessment following the match and was not influenced by racial profiling, while also acknowledging in writing that the arrest may have been the result of bias within facial recognition technology.","causal_attribution":"Two accounts that conflict on the decisive input to the arrest. Neither the match record nor the officers’ assessment record was inspected."},{"id":"c7","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"His neighbours saw him being led away in handcuffs, his father was very anxious about him being held and he was unable to work the following day, he said.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"He sometimes needs security clearance to work for government clients and he is asked about arrests and said: “This makes me look dodgier and dodgier.”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Now he has had a second mugshot taken he is afraid the automated system could trigger more wrongful arrests.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"While we apologise for the distress caused to the complainant in this case","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Choudhury reports that neighbours saw him led away in handcuffs, that his father was very anxious about him being held, and that he was unable to work the following day. He says he sometimes needs security clearance to work for government clients, is asked about arrests, and that “This makes me look dodgier and dodgier”, and that he is afraid the automated system could trigger more arrests now that a second mugshot has been taken.","causal_attribution":"First-person account relayed by the Guardian. The police apology for distress caused is the only independent acknowledgement of an effect. No effect on an actual clearance decision is reported."},{"id":"c8","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Choudhury’s mugshot was held on the police system only because he had been wrongly arrested in 2021 when he had been attacked on a night out","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The police released him with no further action.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"comparing images taken from sources such as social media and CCTV to a database of more than 19m custody images, or mugshots.","relation":"context","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Choudhury’s image was held on the police system only because of an arrest in 2021 that the Guardian describes as wrongful (he had been attacked on a night out) and that ended with police releasing him with no further action.","causal_attribution":"Background as told by Choudhury to the Guardian. The sources do not state in terms that this custody image was the one returned by the search."},{"id":"c9","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Choudhury is claiming damages against Thames Valley police and Hampshire constabulary, which executed his arrest.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"after filing a complaint against Thames Valley Police","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"to pursue a claim for damages against Thames Valley Police for false imprisonment, breach of data protection law, breach of Art 8 ECHR and breach of the Equality Act 2010.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Choudhury filed a complaint against Thames Valley Police and is claiming damages from Thames Valley Police and Hampshire Constabulary. His solicitors have instructed counsel to pursue a claim for damages against Thames Valley Police for false imprisonment, breach of data protection law, breach of Article 8 ECHR and breach of the Equality Act 2010.","causal_attribution":"A complaint and a claim establish only their own existence and the allegations made. No court filing or outcome was found in the inspected sources."},{"id":"c10","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"This is the FR software currently used in the Police National Database (PND) for which the operational use case is Retrospective Facial Recognition (RFR).","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"The FPIR for White subjects (0.04 %) is lower than that for Asian subjects (4.0 %)","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"At a face-match threshold of 0.8:","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"A National Physical Laboratory report for the Home Office and the Office of the Policing Chief Scientific Adviser (dated October 2025) evaluated Cognitec FaceVACS-DBScan ID v5.5, which it describes as the facial recognition software used in the Police National Database for retrospective facial recognition. At a face-match threshold of 0.8 on its test data it found a false positive identification rate of 4.0 % for Asian subjects and 0.04 % for White subjects.","causal_attribution":"The report establishes the evaluation findings on its own test dataset. It does not state which product version, threshold or settings applied to the search in this case."}],"effects":[{"label":"Arrested at home and held in custody for nearly 10 hours after a police retrospective facial recognition match","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"Distress acknowledged by the police, a lost working day and worry about future arrests and security clearance, as reported by Choudhury","claim_id":"c7","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/feb/25/facial-recognition-error-prompts-police-to-arrest-asian-man-for-burglary-100-miles-away","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"guardian-liberty-investigates-reporting"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://libertyinvestigates.org.uk/articles/the-rise-of-facial-recognition-policing/","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"guardian-liberty-investigates-reporting"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/news/automated-facial-recognition-software-innocent-man-arrested","kind":"organisation_statement","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read through an Internet Archive capture of 22 April 2026 because the site returned HTTP 403 to direct requests.","independence_group":"claimant-legal-team-post"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/693002a4cdec734f4dff4149/1a_Cognitec_NPL_Equitability_Report_October_25.pdf","kind":"official_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"npl-evaluation-report"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice","privacy"],"unknowns":["Which product, version, face-match threshold and match score the Thames Valley Police search used is not stated. The National Physical Laboratory report evaluates Cognitec FaceVACS-DBScan ID v5.5 (the Police National Database software) at stated thresholds, and the sources do not say those settings applied here.","The documents shared with the Guardian, the police letter to Choudhury, the CCTV footage and the police interview record were not inspected. All account details come from news reports and a chambers post.","Whether the human visual assessment preceded the arrest request, which force made the request and which force made the decision are stated differently by Choudhury, his solicitors and the police, and no record was inspected.","Whether a court claim was filed and the outcome of the complaint and the damages claim are not reported in any inspected source (the latest inspected reports are dated 1 April 2026).","The date 8 January 2026 comes from the news post of the claimant’s counsel (Internet Archive capture). The Guardian says only January. Distances given by outlets differ (100 miles in the Guardian) and are not material.","The burglary, the burglary suspect and any prosecution are not described in the inspected sources."],"geography":{"basis":"The arrest took place at Choudhury’s home in Southampton and the burglary was in Milton Keynes, both placed in England by the Guardian (Thames Valley Police and Hampshire Constabulary are the forces named). No court proceedings are reported, so court countries are unknown.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":["GB"],"affected_person_countries":["GB"]},"publication":{"basis":"The Guardian article and the Liberty Investigates April feature were read in full from saved bodies. They come from one Liberty Investigates investigation built on an interview with Choudhury, documents shared with the Guardian and police statements, so they count as one reporting chain. The arrest date comes from the claimant’s counsel and the technical context from the National Physical Laboratory report, cited for its own contents. Claims about the arrest stay at reported status, the decisive causal question is recorded as disputed because Thames Valley Police dispute the causal account, and only the contents of the National Physical Laboratory report are recorded as documented. Choudhury is named because he spoke about the arrest under his own name to the Guardian and Liberty Investigates. The burglary suspect is not named or described beyond the reported age difference.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Thames Valley Police’s own statement, quoted by the Guardian, refers to a retrospective facial recognition match preceding the arrest, and the Guardian cites documents shared by Liberty Investigates. The police say the arrest decision rested on the investigating officers’ own visual assessment. Choudhury says the footage showed a man who looked about 10 years younger with different features, and that he assumed the investigating officer decided to arrest him because he is a brown person with curly hair. The police also wrote that the arrest may have been the result of bias within the technology. The weight of the match in the arrest decision is disputed. The sources do not identify the product version, threshold or match score.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"Southampton: Alvi Choudhury arrested at home on suspicion of a Milton Keynes burglary after a police retrospective facial recognition match, held nearly 10 hours, claiming damages","summary":"The Guardian, in a joint report with Liberty Investigates, reported on 25 February 2026 that Alvi Choudhury, a 26-year-old software engineer, was arrested at his home in Southampton in January 2026 on suspicion of a £3,000 burglary in Milton Keynes, about 100 miles away, and held in custody for nearly 10 hours. Thames Valley Police had used automated retrospective facial recognition software, which matched him with CCTV footage of the burglary suspect. Choudhury says the man in the footage looked about 10 years younger and had different features. Thames Valley Police wrote to him that the arrest may have been the result of bias within facial recognition technology, and told the Guardian that the decision rested on the investigating officers’ own visual assessment and was not influenced by racial profiling. Choudhury is claiming damages from Thames Valley Police and Hampshire Constabulary.","incidentDate":"2026-01-08","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-02-25","aiSystem":"Retrospective facial recognition search run by Thames Valley Police (product, version and reference database not stated in the sources)","aiProduct":"Unidentified facial recognition system","aiCompany":"Not stated in the sources for this search (the Guardian says UK police forces use an algorithm procured by the Home Office from Cognitec)","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["loss_of_liberty","psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The Guardian reports Choudhury was handcuffed at home, held for nearly 10 hours and released at 2am, and was unable to work the following day. Choudhury says neighbours saw him led away. Thames Valley Police apologised for the distress caused and deny the arrest was unlawful.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"disputed","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One man reported arrested and held. His father, neighbours and the burglary suspect are not counted as harmed.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"GB","platformType":"other","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/feb/25/facial-recognition-error-prompts-police-to-arrest-asian-man-for-burglary-100-miles-away","primarySourceLabel":"The Guardian with Liberty Investigates (25 Feb 2026): Facial recognition error prompts police to arrest Asian man for burglary 100 miles away","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T21:15:56.164264+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:54.246626+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2026"]},{"id":"2026-arnold-sainsburys-facewatch-misidentification","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"The incident happened on 6 August as Arnold; he was approached by two of the management staff and told he could not be served due to an incident \"earlier in the week\"; \"They came over and said I had to leave. The staff member said I'd been identified by the AI, and the cameras had flagged me,\" he told BBC London.; After being escorted off the premises","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"he was approached by two managers who told him he could not be served owing to an earlier incident. He was then asked to leave and they tried to escort him from the store.; At that point I did stand my ground and said I would be walking myself out.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"On 6 August 2026, at a self-service till in Sainsbury's East Dulwich store in south-east London, two managers told Arnold he could not be served because of an incident earlier in the week, a staff member told him he had been identified by the AI and that the cameras had flagged him, and he was asked to leave; the BBC says he was escorted off the premises, and he told the Guardian he insisted on walking himself out.","causal_attribution":"Arnold's own account, given to both outlets; the retailer confirms that he was wrongly challenged and apologised."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Arnold said he had looked back from the entrance and saw an overhead CCTV monitor alert with a red circle surrounding his face.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"As he left, he saw an overhead CCTV monitor alert with a red circle surrounding his face.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Arnold says that as he left he saw an overhead CCTV monitor alert with a red circle surrounding his face.","causal_attribution":"Arnold's own observation; both outlets carry the same witness, so the observation is not independently corroborated. Sainsbury's and Facewatch say the alert concerned a different person."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Sainsbury's head office contacted Arnold the following day to apologise, maintaining the incident had been caused by \"human error\" rather than software failure.; Sainsbury's claimed staff had targeted the wrong person after a separate flag; has confirmed the technology has been paused at the Dulwich store in south-east London while an investigation takes place; \"A correct alert was sent to the retailer, but was subsequently subject to human error in the way it was handled in store,\" they said.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The incident was caused by human error, not the facial recognition technology.; “A correct alert was sent to the retailer, but was subsequently subject to human error in the way it was handled in store,” they said.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Sainsbury's apologised to Arnold the next day, said the incident was caused by human error and not by the facial recognition technology, and paused the Facewatch system at the store while it investigates. Facewatch said a correct alert was sent and then mishandled in store, and the BBC reports Sainsbury's position that staff targeted the wrong person after a separate flag.","causal_attribution":"Company statements quoted by both outlets; they contest the system's role, which is why AI involvement is recorded as disputed. The BBC image caption is the only passage saying whose face the alert concerned."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"“I was embarrassed, mortified even, and felt quite humiliated and powerless,” Matt Arnold, 46, said of his ordeal.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Arnold, who donated a £150 goodwill voucher from Sainsbury's to a local food bank","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Arnold described feeling embarrassed, mortified, humiliated and powerless, and donated a £150 goodwill voucher from Sainsbury's to a local food bank.","causal_attribution":"Arnold's own account."}],"effects":[{"label":"publicly refused service and escorted out of a supermarket as a suspected shoplifter after a facial recognition alert; retailer apologised","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cddjlmeqjgyo","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English on 2026-10-13 (BBC News London, published 17 August 2026; Arnold interview, Sainsbury's and Facewatch statements). Saved as bodies/rb-arnold-bbc.txt.","independence_group":"bbc-london-arnold-interview"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/aug/17/humiliated-sainsburys-store-pauses-ai-scanning-after-false-shoplifting-accusation","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English on 2026-10-13 (The Guardian, 17 August 2026; Arnold quotes, Sainsbury's and Facewatch statements). Saved as bodies/rb-arnold-guardian.txt. Arnold's account and the company statements are the same witnesses as in the BBC report, so the two outlets do not independently corroborate them.","independence_group":"guardian-arnold-interview"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["everyday_life"],"unknowns":["Whether the alert concerned Arnold's face or another person's is not established: Arnold reports a monitor alert circling his face, while Sainsbury's and Facewatch say a correct alert concerned someone else and staff approached the wrong customer.","The content of the alert, the watchlist entry it referred to and what the managers saw on their devices are not published.","The outcome of Sainsbury's investigation and whether the system was reinstated at the store are not reported."],"geography":{"basis":"Event: Sainsbury's East Dulwich store in south-east London (BBC; Guardian). Neither source states where Arnold lives or his nationality, so the affected-person country is left unknown. No court.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":["GB"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"A named shopper describes, in interviews with BBC London and the Guardian, being refused service and escorted out of a supermarket after staff told him the store's facial recognition had flagged him, and seeing a monitor alert circling his face. Sainsbury's confirms the wrongful challenge and apologised; Sainsbury's and Facewatch attribute it to staff handling a correct alert about another person. The AI involvement is recorded as disputed and the relations rest on his attributed account. Low severity.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-13"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Arnold says a staff member told him he had been identified by the AI and that the cameras had flagged him, and that on his way out he saw an overhead CCTV monitor alert with a red circle surrounding his face (BBC; Guardian). On his account, the Facewatch system's alert flagged him and the managers refused him service and escorted him out on that alert. Sainsbury's and Facewatch dispute this: Facewatch says a correct alert was sent and mishandled in store, and the BBC reports Sainsbury's claim that staff targeted the wrong person after a separate flag. Neither company published the alert, so whose face the system matched is unresolved; the relations rest on Arnold's attributed account.","status":"disputed"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"London shopper says staff told him Sainsbury's facial recognition flagged him as a shoplifter and he was escorted out; retailer blames human error","summary":"On 6 August 2026 Matt Arnold, a comedy promoter, was refused service at a self-service till in Sainsbury's East Dulwich store and escorted out by two managers, who cited an incident earlier in the week. He says a staff member told him he had been identified by the AI and that he saw a CCTV monitor alert with a red circle around his face as he left. Sainsbury's apologised the next day, said the cause was human error rather than the facial recognition technology, and paused its Facewatch system at the store while it investigates. Facewatch says a correct alert was sent and mishandled in store; the BBC reports Sainsbury's claim that staff targeted the wrong person after a separate flag. Whose face the system matched is unresolved.","incidentDate":"2026-08-06","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-08-17","aiSystem":"Facewatch live facial recognition (deployed by Sainsbury's)","aiProduct":"Facewatch facial recognition","aiCompany":"Facewatch","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["psychological_distress","reputational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"A shopper says he was publicly refused service and escorted out of a supermarket after staff told him the store's facial recognition had flagged him; he describes humiliation, and the retailer apologised while blaming human error.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"disputed","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person, Arnold, was refused service and escorted out (BBC; Guardian). Earlier shoppers challenged at other stores are separate incidents and are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"GB","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"internal_action","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cddjlmeqjgyo","primarySourceLabel":"BBC News London, 17 August 2026: Sainsbury's branch halts AI use as shopper ejected","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-16T03:16:36.926518+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-13T03:01:21.291526+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["facial-recognition","facewatch","retail","london"]}]}