Sainsbury’s Facial Recognition Combats Shoplifting

Sainsbury’s has begun testing facial recognition technology in selected stores to identify repeat offenders and reduce shoplifting, triggering a wave of privacy concerns from civil liberties groups.

Surveillance Trial Rolling Out in London and Bath

The supermarket chain confirmed that an eight-week pilot programme is underway at a small number of stores in London and Bath. The facial recognition cameras are supplied by Facewatch, a UK-based security technology firm that already provides similar services to a range of retailers.

The system captures the biometric data of individuals who are already on a watchlist for suspected theft or abuse. If someone flagged on this list enters a participating store, an alert is sent to staff in real time. Sainsbury’s says the trial is being used only at locations with a high incidence of repeat offending.

The trial began in late August and is expected to run through to October. Depending on results, it could be expanded to more branches across the UK. Facewatch claims its technology can help retailers cut shoplifting and abuse by deterring known offenders and giving staff more time to intervene safely.

Why Sainsbury’s Is Doing This Now

Retail crime has surged in recent years, with the British Retail Consortium (BRC) estimating the total cost to the sector at £1.76 billion in 2023, including £1.04 billion in customer theft alone. Also, physical assaults and abuse of shop workers have also been rising sharply, prompting calls for tougher enforcement and more robust security measures.

Sainsbury’s said in a statement: “We’re constantly looking at new ways to keep our colleagues and customers safe. We’re currently trialling facial recognition in a small number of stores where there is a high level of crime.”

Signage About It

The company emphasised that the technology is not being used for general customer surveillance or profiling, and that signage is in place at affected locations to notify shoppers that facial recognition is in use.

Powered by Facewatch (Controversially)

The system being used by Sainsbury’s is provided by Facewatch, a private facial recognition firm founded in 2010. Facewatch says it operates within UK GDPR and the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, and only stores data on those individuals who have been involved in past incidents, as reported by retailers.

Its technology compares live CCTV footage to images held in its centralised database of “subjects of interest.” If there is a match, an alert is sent to store staff with a still-image and time-stamped location data.

While Facewatch has been used by independent retailers, petrol stations and other supermarket chains including Southern Co-op and Budgens, it has not previously been adopted by any of the UK’s four major supermarket brands at this scale.

It seems that the company has drawn some criticism from privacy campaigners for operating a privately managed watchlist system that can share biometric alerts between businesses, with concerns raised about accuracy, accountability, and the lack of independent oversight.

The move by Sainsbury’s essentially takes facial recognition further into the retail mainstream and puts the technology under new levels of public and regulatory scrutiny. It also raises the stakes for how and where this kind of surveillance may be used next across the sector.

Privacy Groups Push Back

Civil liberties organisations were quick to voice concerns. For example, Big Brother Watch, a UK privacy campaign group, accused Sainsbury’s of introducing “unnecessary and Orwellian” surveillance under the guise of crime prevention.

“Facial recognition surveillance is extreme, and Sainsbury’s customers should not be subjected to identity checks to buy milk,” said Madeleine Stone, Senior Advocacy Officer at Big Brother Watch. “This sets a dangerous precedent not just for retail, but for everyday public life.”

The group also raised concerns about transparency and consent, arguing that biometric surveillance in shops blurs the line between policing and commerce. It warned that the use of facial recognition could result in misidentifications, discrimination, and the over-policing of vulnerable groups.

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has previously cautioned organisations using facial recognition to ensure legal compliance and necessity. It has not commented directly on the Sainsbury’s trial but is likely to monitor developments closely.

Facewatch’s Role in Expanding Everyday Surveillance

Sainsbury’s pilot sits within a broader shift where facial recognition is moving from niche deployments to visible use in everyday retail settings. Southern Co‑op has used Facewatch across dozens of branches since 2020, while independent convenience stores and some symbol groups have reported measurable reductions in repeat theft when using similar watchlist alerts. In one Morrisons Daily site, the store owner told trade press that incidents dropped by as much as ninety per cent after installation, though these results are self‑reported rather than independently audited.

Other Big Chains Are Already Testing the Waters

Other large grocers have been testing live facial recognition in recent months. For example, Asda ran a trial across five Greater Manchester stores, drawing thousands of complaints and sustained criticism from privacy groups, which shows how quickly public reaction can become a material factor in rollouts. Iceland has also been named by campaigners as exploring use, although details remain limited. These parallel efforts are relevant to Sainsbury’s because they indicate how public tolerance, operational benefits, and regulatory scrutiny interact in real retail environments.

Concerns About Accuracy and Misidentification

Concerns about accuracy and fairness remain central to the debate about the use of this kind of technology. For example, privacy group Big Brother Watch argues that commercial watchlists risk misidentifying innocent shoppers because entries are often created by retailers rather than police and can be shared between participating businesses. The group says this creates a risk of people being wrongly flagged and excluded. There have been reported misidentifications, including a case where a customer was barred after a Facewatch alert, which Facewatch later acknowledged was an error. These cases are shaping campaigners’ calls for stricter safeguards and clearer lines of accountability.

Legal Uncertainty Around Commercial Use

The policy landscape adds another layer. For example, the UK has no dedicated statute that comprehensively governs private sector facial recognition in public‑facing spaces, so retailers largely rely on data protection law, necessity and proportionality tests, and DPIAs to justify deployments. The ICO has previously investigated Facewatch and related deployments and, according to evidence submitted to Parliament, identified multiple areas where policies needed to better balance legitimate interests with people’s rights. This context frames what retailers must document and evidence when running pilots like Sainsbury’s.

How the Trial Is Being Measured

Operationally, Sainsbury’s says the Facewatch system is configured to alert staff only when a person on a pre‑defined watchlist is detected, focused on individuals linked to violence, aggression, or theft. Faces that do not match are deleted immediately, and signage at trial stores informs customers that facial recognition is in use. The supermarket has also stressed that the pilot is limited to locations with high levels of repeat offending, and that it is intended to support staff safety rather than to monitor ordinary shoppers.

Retail Crime Data Is Driving Urgency

Evaluation will centre on measurable changes in repeat theft and abuse, staff perceptions of safety, and any displacement effects, for example incidents shifting to nearby stores. The British Retail Consortium reports retail theft at crisis levels, with more than twenty million incidents in 2023 to 2024 and an estimated £2.2 billion lost to shoplifting, which explains why large chains are testing additional controls alongside guards, body‑worn cameras, and product protection. These sector‑wide figures provide the baseline against which any impact from facial recognition will be assessed.

Public Reaction Will Influence Industry Direction

It’s likely that public response will also form part of the assessment. Big Brother Watch has labelled the Sainsbury’s pilot “deeply disproportionate and chilling,” arguing that biometric scanning in supermarkets treats shoppers as suspects and risks normalising identity checks for everyday purchases. Trade unions have tended to frame the question through the lens of staff safety, calling for evidence‑led approaches that reduce violence and abuse at work. Therefore, how these competing views evolve during the pilot will influence whether other national chains follow Sainsbury’s lead.

Regulatory Input Could Shape What Comes Next

Also, any regulatory feedback could shape the design of future deployments. For example, if the ICO receives complaints during the trial, it may seek clarifications on data retention, watchlist criteria, redress routes for mistaken identity, and transparency notices. Previous facial recognition pilots in retail and other sectors have drawn attention to these governance questions, so documenting them clearly is likely to be as important as any headline reduction in theft.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

The outcome of this trial will matter not only for Sainsbury’s but for any UK business operating in high-footfall environments where theft, abuse, or anti-social behaviour is on the rise. If facial recognition is shown to reduce repeat offending without undermining customer trust, other sectors may begin exploring similar systems, from retail and hospitality to logistics and healthcare. However, that will depend on clear governance, strong safeguards, and public confidence in how the technology is being used.

For technology providers, the stakes are also high. For example, Facewatch’s credibility as a supplier of compliant, proportionate, and accurate surveillance tools may hinge on how this pilot is received by regulators and rights groups. If the ICO intervenes or public backlash intensifies, it could limit how far these systems can expand. Businesses adopting facial recognition will need to be ready to justify every aspect of its deployment, from necessity and proportionality to data handling and redress.

For consumers and communities, the case raises fresh questions about what kind of monitoring is acceptable in everyday spaces, and where the boundaries lie between legitimate protection and excessive surveillance. The lack of specific legislation leaves a vacuum where privacy, ethics, and commercial interest are all pulling in different directions. Without clear national rules, it may fall to individual retailers, campaigners, and regulators to shape how far this goes.

As the pilot continues, attention will turn to how Sainsbury’s measures success and handles concerns. Whether this becomes a new layer of shopfloor security or a short-lived experiment will depend on what the results show, how they are interpreted, and whether wider industry and political appetite supports rolling it out further.