{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-26T07:45:44.699Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"watchlist","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"contextual","evidence":"","year":"","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":3,"coverage":{"cases":3,"countries":2,"languages":1,"unknownLocation":0,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":1,"regulatory":1,"minors":0,"coreRelations":0,"contextualRelations":3,"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":"2024-london-bridge-met-police-live-facial-recognition-wrongly-matched-man-to-watchlisted-brother-stop-settlement","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'It is not in dispute that, on 23 February 2024, Mr Thompson passed an LFR deployment in the area around London Bridge. His face was matched to an image contained on the watchlist in use on that day, so as to generate an alert. The LFR system had detected a high level of facial similarity between images obtained of Mr Thompson and the image of his brother who was on the watchlist as being the subject of an outstanding arrest warrant'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Mr Thompson was mistakenly identified during an LFR deployment near London Bridge after being matched to an image of his brother, who was on a police watchlist.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"On 23 February 2024 the man passed a Met Police live facial recognition deployment near London Bridge; the system detected a high level of facial similarity between images of him and the watchlist image of his brother, who was the subject of an outstanding arrest warrant, and generated an alert.","causal_attribution":"Facts recorded by the court as not in dispute; the press summary is the court's own summary of the same judgment."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Mr Thompson was stopped, detained and questioned by police officers after having been matched by LFR'; 'they nevertheless scrutinised him, asked questions and made him prove his identity. When he declined to allow his fingerprints to be taken, he was threatened with arrest. Mr Thompson explains how the experience caused him to feel angry and distressed.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'He was held by officers for almost 30 minutes, who repeatedly demanded scans of his fingerprints and threatened him with arrest'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"According to the court's account of his case, officers stopped, detained and questioned him, made him prove his identity, and threatened him with arrest when he declined to have his fingerprints taken; he says the experience left him angry and distressed.","causal_attribution":"The court's introduction summarises his account; Big Brother Watch relays the same account. Both rest on his evidence, so the claim is reported, and the 30-minute figure is attributed to Big Brother Watch."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'They ceased their engagement with him after considering information held on the Police National Computer about his brother. Mr Thompson was able to show police a copy of his passport photograph on his phone, which enabled his identity to be confirmed.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Officers ended their engagement after considering police records about his brother, and he confirmed his identity with a copy of his passport photograph on his phone.","causal_attribution":"Facts set out in the judgment's account of the first claimant."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'On 18 December 2024 a consent order was agreed (eventually sealed on 30 April 2025) by which grounds 1 and 2 of the original claim were withdrawn on terms as to costs and a settlement sum payable to Mr Thompson.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"His original judicial review grounds about the stop were withdrawn under a consent order agreed on 18 December 2024 and sealed on 30 April 2025, on terms as to costs and a settlement sum payable to him.","causal_attribution":"Procedural history recorded in the judgment; the amount and any admission are not stated."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Accordingly, the claim is dismissed.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'The court emphasised that it is not concerned with the merits of facial recognition technology as a policing tool.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"On 21 April 2026 the Divisional Court dismissed the amended claim challenging the Met's revised September 2024 live facial recognition policy, saying it was not concerned with the merits of the technology as a policing tool.","causal_attribution":"Outcome of the judgment; the challenge concerned the revised policy, not the lawfulness of the February 2024 stop."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The claimants have announced plans to appeal.'; 'Thompson added: “No one should be treated like a criminal due to a computer error.”'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"IDTechWire reported on 22 April 2026 that the claimants planned to appeal, quoting him: 'No one should be treated like a criminal due to a computer error.'","causal_attribution":"Trade press report of the claimants' statements; no appeal decision was found."}],"effects":[{"label":"stopped, questioned and threatened with arrest after a live facial recognition false match, and left angry and distressed","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/admin/2026/915","kind":"court_judgment","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-26; no translation.","independence_group":"ewhc-2026-915"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Summary-of-judgment-Thomson-and-Carlo-v-Metropolitan-Police-Commmissioner-AC-2024-LON-001764-21-04-2026.pdf","kind":"court_press_summary","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-26; no translation.","independence_group":"ewhc-2026-915"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/press-releases/met-police-face-major-legal-challenge-over-use-of-live-facial-recognition-technology/","kind":"advocacy_press_release","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-26; no translation.","independence_group":"big-brother-watch"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://idtechwire.com/uk-high-court-upholds-met-police-lfr-policy-claimants-plan-appeal/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-26; no translation.","independence_group":"idtechwire-2026-04-22"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice","privacy","public_services"],"unknowns":["How long the stop lasted according to the police; only Big Brother Watch gives almost 30 minutes.","The settlement amount and whether the force accepted any fault in the consent order.","Whether the claimants' announced appeal was filed or permitted.","Paragraph 20 of the judgment dates the use of LFR complained of to 23 February 2023; paragraphs 17 and 141 give 23 February 2024, which is used here."],"geography":{"basis":"The judgment places the deployment and stop near London Bridge station and says he was born and lives in London; the judicial review was decided by the High Court in London.","court_countries":["GB"],"event_countries":["GB"],"affected_person_countries":["GB"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a facial recognition false match leading to a police stop, with a legal outcome: the High Court judgment records the system's alert matching him to his brother's watchlist image as not in dispute, a consent order with a settlement sum paid to him, and the dismissal of his later challenge to the force's deployment policy.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-26"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The High Court records as not in dispute that the Met's live facial recognition system detected a high level of facial similarity between images of him and his brother's watchlist image and generated the alert; the court's account and Big Brother Watch describe officers stopping and questioning him after that match. The system's false match is the output that went wrong; the officers' decision to stop him and demand proof of identity followed from it.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"London: Met Police live facial recognition wrongly matched a man to his watchlisted brother; officers stopped him and he later received a settlement","summary":"On 23 February 2024 Shaun Thompson, a London community volunteer whom the 2026 judgment describes as 39, walked past a Metropolitan Police live facial recognition deployment near London Bridge station. The High Court records as not in dispute that the system detected a high level of facial similarity between images of him and the watchlist image of his brother, who was the subject of an outstanding arrest warrant, and generated an alert. According to the court's account, officers stopped, detained and questioned him and made him prove his identity, and when he declined to have his fingerprints taken he was threatened with arrest; he says the experience left him angry and distressed. Officers ended the engagement after checking police records about his brother, and he confirmed his identity with a passport photograph on his phone. Big Brother Watch, whose director was his co-claimant, says he was held for almost 30 minutes despite showing several identity documents. His judicial review claim about the stop, issued in May 2024, was withdrawn under a consent order agreed on 18 December 2024 on terms including a settlement sum paid to him. An amended challenge to the Met's revised live facial recognition policy of September 2024, brought with Big Brother Watch's director, was dismissed by the Divisional Court on 21 April 2026; the court said it was not judging the merits of the technology, and the claimants announced plans to appeal.","incidentDate":"2024-02-23","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2025-07-22","aiSystem":"The Metropolitan Police Service's live facial recognition system, which compares faces captured in public places with biometric data from a watchlist of sought persons; the judgment says the force's operational LFR used technology known as the NEC-3 algorithm","aiProduct":"Metropolitan Police live facial recognition","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["loss_of_liberty","psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"A live facial recognition alert wrongly matched him to his brother's watchlist image; according to the High Court's account he was stopped, detained and questioned, made to prove his identity and threatened with arrest when he declined fingerprints, and he says he was left angry and distressed. Big Brother Watch says he was held for almost 30 minutes.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the first claimant, whose face the system matched to his brother's watchlist image and whom officers stopped. The co-claimant witnessed the stop and is not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"GB","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_dismissed","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/admin/2026/915","primarySourceLabel":"R (Thompson and Carlo) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2026] EWHC 915 (Admin), 21 April 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-26T03:13:03.528278+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-26T03:13:03.528278+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["live-facial-recognition","police-stop","false-match","watchlist","judicial-review","settlement"]},{"id":"2019-us-rite-aid-facial-recognition-false-matches-led-staff-to-search-and-eject-shoppers-ftc-says","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The technology generated alerts sent to Rite Aid’s employees, including by email or mobile phone application notifications (“match alerts”), indicating that individuals who had entered Rite Aid stores were matches for entries in Rite Aid’s watchlist database.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Rite Aid used facial recognition in its stores to send employees match alerts saying that people entering were matches for its watchlist database, and employees acted on the alerts.","causal_attribution":"FTC allegation; Rite Aid neither admits nor denies."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'In numerous instances, the match alerts that led to these actions were false positives' and 'Rite Aid employees recorded thousands of false positive match alerts between December 2019 and July 2020.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The FTC alleges that in numerous instances the alerts that led employees to watch, eject, accuse, search or report customers to police were false positives, and that employees recorded thousands of false-positive alerts between December 2019 and July 2020.","causal_attribution":"FTC allegation from Rite Aid records; not adjudicated."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Rite Aid employees stopped and searched an 11-year-old girl on the basis of a false- positive facial recognition match. The girl’s mother told Rite Aid that she had missed work because her daughter was so distraught by the incident.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Employees stopped and searched an 11-year-old girl on a false-positive match; her mother told Rite Aid she missed work because her daughter was so distraught.","causal_attribution":"FTC allegation based on a complaint to Rite Aid."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'an alert indicating that a consumer—' and 'specifically a Black woman—was a match for an enrollment image that Rite Aid employees' and 'described as depicting “a white lady with blonde hair.” In response to the alert, Rite Aid' and 'employees called the police and asked the woman to leave the store before realizing the alert was'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The system matched a Black woman to an enrollment image employees described as a white woman with blonde hair; employees called the police and asked her to leave before realising the alert was false.","causal_attribution":"FTC allegation drawn from Rite Aid's internal investigation."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Consumers complained to Rite Aid that they had experienced humiliation and feelings of stigmatization as a result of being confronted' and '[E]very black man is not [a] thief nor should they be made to feel like one' and 'I feel different from this experience when I walk into a store now it’s weird.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Customers complained of humiliation and stigmatisation from false-positive stops; one wrote of feeling different entering stores afterwards and of being made to feel like a thief.","causal_attribution":"Consumer complaints as quoted by the FTC."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'are prohibited for five (5) years from the effective date of this Order from deploying or using, or assisting in the deployment or use of, any Facial Recognition or Analysis System' and 'Defendants neither admit nor deny any of the allegations in the Complaint'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Rite Aid agreed to a proposed stipulated order prohibiting it for five years from using facial recognition or analysis systems in retail stores, while neither admitting nor denying the complaint's allegations.","causal_attribution":"Terms of the filed proposed order; its entry by the court was not inspected."}],"effects":[{"label":"girl stopped and searched on a false facial-recognition match","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"},{"label":"police called and customer asked to leave on a false match","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"},{"label":"humiliation and stigmatisation from false-positive stops","claim_id":"c5","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/2023190_riteaid_complaint_filed.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-22 from the Internet Archive capture (ftc.gov direct returned 404); no translation needed. FTC complaint, E.D. Pa. 2:23-cv-05023, Document 1, filed 19 Dec 2023; the text of page 1 was not extractable.","independence_group":"ftc-v-rite-aid-2023-filings"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/2023190_riteaid_stipulated_order_filed.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-22 from the Internet Archive capture (ftc.gov direct returned 404); no translation needed. Proposed stipulated order and attached decision and order, Document 2-2, filed 19 Dec 2023.","independence_group":"ftc-v-rite-aid-2023-filings"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["everyday_life","privacy"],"unknowns":["When and where the girl was searched and the police were called on the woman.","Which vendors supplied the technology (the complaint does not name them in the text read).","Whether and when the court entered the proposed order.","How many customers were stopped, searched or ejected on false matches."],"geography":{"basis":"The complaint places Rite Aid's facial recognition use in its US stores (New York City, Los Angeles and other US cities); it was filed in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The described customers' countries are not stated.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a contextual case (made_claim_about, informed_decision_about): the FTC alleges Rite Aid's facial recognition wrongly matched customers to a watchlist and staff acted on the false alerts by searching an 11-year-old girl and calling police on a woman; Rite Aid agreed to a five-year ban without admitting the allegations.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-22"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The FTC complaint says Rite Aid's facial recognition system compared customers' faces with a watchlist and sent employees match alerts, that the alerts were in numerous instances false positives (the system wrongly identified a person as someone in the database), and that employees acted on those false alerts by searching an 11-year-old girl, calling police on a Black woman and asking customers to leave. The system's own wrong matches are the alleged error; Rite Aid neither admits nor denies.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"US: FTC says Rite Aid's facial recognition falsely matched shoppers to a watchlist, leading staff to search an 11-year-old girl and call police on a woman","summary":"In a complaint filed in federal court in Pennsylvania on 19 December 2023, the US Federal Trade Commission alleged that the pharmacy chain Rite Aid used facial recognition in its stores to match customers against a database of people it suspected of shoplifting or other wrongdoing, and that staff acted on the match alerts by following, searching, ejecting and publicly accusing customers and by calling the police. The FTC says many alerts were false positives: employees recorded thousands of false-positive alerts between December 2019 and July 2020, staff stopped and searched an 11-year-old girl on a false match, and employees called the police on a Black woman matched to an image of a white woman with blonde hair. Rite Aid agreed to a proposed order barring it from using facial recognition in retail stores for five years, without admitting or denying the allegations.","incidentDate":"2019-12-01","incidentEndDate":"2020-07-01","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2023-12-19","aiSystem":"Facial recognition technology from two vendors (not named in the complaint) that Rite Aid deployed in its stores to compare customers' faces with a watchlist database and send match alerts to employees","aiProduct":"Unidentified facial recognition system","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["psychological_distress","reputational_harm","other_material_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The FTC alleges that false facial-recognition matches led Rite Aid staff to search, eject, publicly accuse and call police on customers, including an 11-year-old girl who was searched and a Black woman on whom police were called; customers described humiliation and stigmatisation.","frameworkFacets":[],"pathwayDirection":"inward","causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":3,"affectedCountStatus":"partial","affectedCountEvidence":"Three people described individually in the complaint: the 11-year-old girl searched on a false match, the Black woman on whom police were called, and the customer who wrote about being treated as a thief. The complaint's thousands of recorded false-positive alerts are alerts, not counted people, so others remain unquantified.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"unknown","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/2023190_riteaid_complaint_filed.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"FTC v. Rite Aid Corp., E.D. Pa. 2:23-cv-05023, complaint filed 19 Dec 2023","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-22T03:13:38.451275+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-22T03:13:38.451275+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["facial_recognition","retail","alleged_false_match","ftc"]},{"id":"2026-chester-home-bargains-facewatch-shopper-told-to-leave-store","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"can you please put everything down and leave the shop now?","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"come up on our system called Facewatch as a shoplifter","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"he was told to leave his local Home Bargains store after the technology linked him to a theft, which he said had nothing to do with him.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The 67-year-old said the incident, which happened in front of a group of people","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"A 67-year-old shopper at a Home Bargains store in Chester was told by a member of staff to put everything down and leave, with the words that the shopper had come up on the store's Facewatch system as a shoplifter, in front of other people.","causal_attribution":"The shopper's account to the BBC and, separately, to the Guardian. Home Bargains declined to comment to the Guardian and the BBC states it had been approached for comment."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"popped into Home Bargains one February lunchtime","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"22 February 2026","relation":"context","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The Guardian says one February lunchtime. The year is inferred from the BBC report of 22 February 2026.","causal_attribution":"The Guardian gives the month and no year. The year is inferred from the BBC report of 22 February 2026 and the GB News report of 23 February 2026, which treat the event as recent. The Guardian gives February for another shopper in the same article where PA gives 27 January, so its month wording is not exact for that case."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"He contacted Facewatch, which sent him his photo with words claiming he had put items into a bag and stolen them.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"revealed he had been incorrectly associated with a shoplifting incident on a previous visit to the shop.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"should not have been on the system and his image and \"the associated record\" had been permanently removed.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The shopper contacted Facewatch, which sent a photo with words saying items had been put into a bag and stolen. A subject access request showed the shopper had been incorrectly associated with a shoplifting incident on a previous visit to the store. Facewatch said the shopper should not have been on the system and that the image and associated record were permanently removed.","causal_attribution":"The shopper's account and a Facewatch statement relayed by the BBC. The Guardian rests on a separate interview with the same shopper. Facewatch does not say how the shopper came to be on the system."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"These cases relate to human error in the way processes were carried out in-store, rather than any failure of Facewatch’s technology.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"These three errors are extremely rare cases","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Home Bargains \"has now completed a full review of the incident\"","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Home Bargains and B&M declined to comment.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"we acted promptly as soon as the matter was brought to our attention","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"Home Bargains declined to comment when approached by GB News.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Facewatch's chief executive told the Guardian, in a statement about the three shoppers the article describes (this shopper is one), that the cases related to human error in the way processes were carried out in store and not to a failure of Facewatch technology. Facewatch told the BBC that Home Bargains had completed a full review of the incident. Home Bargains declined to comment.","causal_attribution":"Facewatch describing its own system and its customer's conduct. The Guardian statement refers to \"the matters referenced\" and \"these three errors\", and the article names three shoppers, of whom this shopper is one. The full review outcome was not published."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Home Bargains eventually issued him an apology and a £100 voucher as a “gesture of goodwill without admission”, on the condition that the details of the incident remain confidential.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"declined: “I just thought: ‘Really, you’re trying to buy my silence?’”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Home Bargains later issued the shopper an apology and a 100 pound voucher as a goodwill gesture without admission, on condition that details of the incident remain confidential. The shopper declined the offer.","causal_attribution":"Guardian account, most likely from the shopper. Home Bargains declined to comment. No second chain was inspected."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"I thought I was going to be sick,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"had left him feeling \"helpless\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"It was like I was guilty until proven innocent. It’s an awful feeling.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"He has called for an apology and said he just wanted \"to feel safe\" going into his local shops again.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"I’m hyper aware of cameras everywhere now","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The shopper reports feeling physically sick and helpless, describes an awful feeling of being treated as guilty until proven innocent, and says the shopper wants to feel safe going into local shops again and is now hyper aware of cameras.","causal_attribution":"The shopper's own statements to the BBC and the Guardian. No independent assessment was inspected."}],"effects":[{"label":"Told to leave a store in front of others as a shoplifter after being flagged on the Facewatch system, which Facewatch says should not have held a record for the shopper. Reported feeling physically sick, helplessness and ongoing unease about cameras.","claim_id":"c6","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn0e56wjz6wo","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"shopper-account-and-facewatch-statements-home-bargains"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/may/03/guilty-until-proven-innocent-shoppers-falsely-identified-by-facial-recognition-struggle-to-clear-their-name","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"shopper-account-and-facewatch-statements-home-bargains"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.gbnews.com/news/pensioner-kicked-out-home-bargains-facial-recognition-mistake-chester-news","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Rewrite of the BBC account with a separate Facewatch statement to GB News.","independence_group":"shopper-account-and-facewatch-statements-home-bargains"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["everyday_life"],"unknowns":["The visit is recorded at year precision. The Guardian says one February lunchtime with no year, and the year is inferred from the BBC (22 February 2026) and GB News (23 February 2026) reports. The Guardian gives February for another shopper where PA gives 27 January, so its month wording may be approximate.","Whether the error lay in the watchlist entry, the face match or the in-store handling is not established. Facewatch attributes it to human error in store processes and also says the shopper should not have been on its system.","The earlier shoplifting incident to which the shopper was incorrectly linked is not described in the inspected sources.","Home Bargains declined to comment, so no retailer account was inspected. The outcome of its full review is not published.","Whether the shopper's request to see CCTV footage from Home Bargains and the police was met is not reported.","The Guardian account of the apology, voucher and confidentiality condition has no second chain.","All inspected sources trace to the shopper's interviews and Facewatch statements, so no claim is corroborated."],"geography":{"basis":"The BBC places the store in Chester under its North West and Cheshire coverage and quotes a spokesperson for the UK Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. The BBC describes the shopper as of Chester.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":["GB"],"affected_person_countries":["GB"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as an ordinary adverse experience with an automated system. The BBC, Guardian and GB News reports were read in full from saved bodies and treated as one reporting chain (the shopper's interviews plus Facewatch statements). Claims stay at reported status and company statements are attributed. The shopper spoke publicly under their own name and is not named in this record.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Staff told the shopper that the shopper had come up on the store's Facewatch system as a shoplifter, and Facewatch sent the shopper a photo with a written theft allegation. Facewatch said the shopper should not have been on its system and removed the record. Facewatch's chief executive attributes the cases in the Guardian article to human error in store processes. The inspected sources do not show whether the fault lay in how the shopper was added to the watchlist, in a face match or in the in-store handling.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"Chester: shopper told to leave a Home Bargains store as a shoplifter after being flagged on the Facewatch system, which Facewatch later said should not have held a record for the shopper","summary":"A 67-year-old shopper told the BBC and the Guardian that staff at a Home Bargains store in Chester told the shopper to leave in front of other people because the shopper had come up on the store's Facewatch system as a shoplifter. Facewatch later sent the shopper a photo with words saying items had been put into a bag and stolen. Facewatch said the shopper should not have been on its system and that the image and associated record were permanently removed. The Guardian reports that a subject access request showed the shopper had been incorrectly associated with a shoplifting incident on an earlier visit, and that Facewatch's chief executive attributed the three cases in the article, which include this shopper's, to human error in store processes. Home Bargains declined to comment. The shopper reports feeling physically sick and helpless. The Guardian reports that Home Bargains later offered an apology and a 100 pound voucher on condition of confidentiality, which the shopper declined. The year of the visit is inferred to be 2026 from the BBC report of 22 February 2026.","incidentDate":"2026-01-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"year","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-02-22","aiSystem":"Facewatch facial recognition watchlist alerts (deployed by Home Bargains)","aiProduct":"Facewatch facial recognition","aiCompany":"Facewatch","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["psychological_distress","reputational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The BBC and the Guardian report the shopper describing feeling physically sick and helpless after being told to leave a store as a shoplifter in front of others, and lasting unease about being recorded. Facewatch said the shopper should not have been on its system.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"disputed","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One shopper reported being told to leave and distressed. No other person is reported harmed in this account.","victimAgeRange":"adult","platformType":"other","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn0e56wjz6wo","primarySourceLabel":"BBC News (22 Feb 2026): Chester man accused of being thief after Home Bargains face scan alert","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T21:15:52.8187+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:31.23933+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2026"]}]}