Australia’s Coles, Woolworths test facial recognition amid retail crime debate

Two of Australia’s largest supermarket chains are testing facial recognition technology as they weigh new tools to combat rising retail theft and violence.

Coles said it had carried out a small proof‑of‑concept which didn’t use customer or staff data. Woolworths confirmed it had trialed the technology at its New Zealand operations and is evaluating whether it’ll expand its use, but hasn’t committed to deploying it in Australia.

The companies both say no decision has been made on broader rollout. The trials follow Wesfarmers’ partial appeal victory earlier this year, which overturned parts of the OAIC’s 2024 ruling against Bunnings’ deployment of Hitachi facial recognition. The tribunal allowed Bunnings to continue using the technology while clarifying how Australia’s Privacy Act applies to retail facial recognition.

The retailers argue facial recognition could help in identifying repeat offenders and thereby protect staff. Data from crime intelligence platform Auror shows the Australian state of Victoria records around 100 violent retail crime incidents daily, which account for more than a third of the national total.  The Australian Retail Council says 10 per cent of offenders are responsible for more than 60 per cent of retail crime.

Earlier this year, research commissioned by retail industry organization the Australian Retail Council (ARC) showed that more than 80 percent of Australians support the use of facial recognition in retail stores to identify people who have physically assaulted or threatened staff with a weapon.

However, privacy concerns remain. The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner has warned that the Bunnings case should not be seen as blanket approval for retailers. Facial recognition involves collecting sensitive biometric data, which under the Privacy Act requires consent unless exceptions apply.

“The Bunnings decision by the ART provided important clarification on certain aspects of the Privacy Act, and this updated guidance incorporates those points of clarification,” Privacy Commissioner Carly Kind said recently.

“A precautionary approach to the deployment of FRT is required under Australian law,” she continued. “This is consistent with the expectations of the Australian community, a significant and growing proportion of whom think facial recognition technology is one of the biggest privacy risks they face today.”

Australia’s Attorney-General Michelle Rowland has said the government may consider rules on how the technology is used as part of upcoming privacy law reforms. Shadow attorney‑general Michaelia Cash has called for clearer national laws to prevent uncertainty for retailers and consumers.

Other chains are taking different approaches. JB Hi‑Fi is monitoring developments but not using the technology, while its subsidiary The Good Guys dropped a trial in 2022 after a privacy investigation. Super Retail Group, owner of Rebel Sport and Supercheap Auto, is relying on CCTV and tagging rather than facial recognition.

The debate shows the tension between protecting staff from rising violence and safeguarding customer privacy. For example, an academic at the University of Queensland’s Centre for Digital Culture and Societies expressed concern that the technology could be used for purposes outside of its initial purview. Luke Munn warned that putting the technology in such an everyday context would be “normalizing surveillance,” telling The Guardian that retailers must weigh security benefits against broader societal costs.

Article Topics

Australia  |  criminal ID  |  facial recognition  |  retail biometrics  |  video surveillance