Wong Supermarket Fined for Unjustified Detention of Teenager in Chocolate Theft Case
Table of Contents
The Consumer Protection Commission of Peru (Indecopi) has sanctioned supermarket chain Cencosud Retail perú S.A. (Wong) for detaining a teenager without justification at its San Miguel Square shopping center location on December 6, 2024. The incident, initially reported by the young man’s father, highlights concerns over consumer rights and appropriate security protocols within retail environments. Five security workers intercepted the young man as he attempted to leave the premises.Crucially,Wong ultimately “accepted what happened,” a concession that significantly streamlined the Indecopi examination and led to a definitive ruling against the supermarket.
Details of the Incident and Initial Complaint
The complainant alleged that he was stopped by five security agents who identified themselves as Wong employees and detained him to investigate the alleged theft.During the investigation,the supermarket chain explicitly acknowledged this action,effectively admitting to the charge presented by the Technical Secretariat. this acceptance removed any debate regarding the unjustified retention, allowing Indecopi to focus on establishing a violation of consumer rights.
outsourced Security Firm Exonerated, Wong Held Responsible
While the intervention was carried out by personnel from the outsourced security company, Iseg Perú SAC, Indecopi steadfast that Iseg acted under the direct guidelines established by wong. A document outlining “Functions of Third Party Security Personnel” presented by the supermarket detailed the expectation to monitor “suspicious” behavior, which ultimately led to the unsubstantiated intervention.
“In legal terms, vicarious liability fell on Wong,” a senior official stated, emphasizing that the supermarket, as the service provider directing operations, accepted responsibility for its staff’s actions.The Commission ruled that sanctioning Iseg was inappropriate, as their actions were directly subordinate to Wong’s operational directives.
No Evidence of Discrimination, But Retention Deemed Unlawful
The complainant also raised concerns about potential discriminatory treatment. However, Indecopi found no evidence to support thes claims, stating that the intervention was not based on the young man’s origin, appearance, or personal condition, as outlined in Article 39 of the consumer Protection and Defense Code. the authority concluded the detention was unjustified, stemming from an erroneous interpretation of perceived suspicious behavior, but not from discriminatory motives.
Repeat Offense Leads to Increased Penalty
Indecopi considered imposing only a reprimand, but ultimately levied a fine due to a significant aggravating factor: this was not the first instance of Wong unjustifiably detaining a customer for alleged chocolate theft. This pattern of behavior led the Commission to reject a lighter sanction and opt for a financial penalty alongside corrective measures.
Corrective Actions and Financial Penalties
Wong is required to send a formal letter of apology to the affected individual within 15 business days and provide proof of compliance to Indecopi. Furthermore, the supermarket has been ordered to provide training to its staff on appropriate security protocols to prevent future improper or disproportionate interventions.
Initially,a fine of 5 UIT (Unidad Impositiva Tributaria) was proposed for violating articles 18 and 19 of the Consumer Protection and Defense Code. However, following a review, the fine was reduced by 50% to 2.50 OFF.The chain can further reduce the penalty by an additional 25% by making the payment before the deadline to appeal the decision.
Appeal Process and Consumer Protection Emphasis
Indecopi has informed all parties that the resolution is effective immediately but does not preclude the possibility of an appeal within the first 15 business days following notification.The authority underscored the importance of protecting consumer dignity and tranquility, emphasizing that detaining individuals requires clear evidence of illegal activity, and suspicion alone is insufficient justification.
“No establishment can detain a person without clear evidence of an illegal act,” a statement from Indecopi affirmed, reinforcing the fundamental principles of consumer protection. This case serves as a critical reminder of the responsibilities retailers have to ensure fair and lawful treatment of all customers, particularly minors.
