Target self-checkout

March 16, 2026

mkopka/Depositphotos.com

Are New Self-Checkout Restrictions a Good Idea?

Increased scrutiny of retail self-checkout processes — whether in the form of new restrictions on maximum item count or the number of self-checkouts allowed to be in operation at any given time — is capturing headlines as of late. Jurisdictions in Connecticut, certain California cities, and New York City are considering restrictions on self-checkouts, as are retailers such as Target.

According to the U.S. Sun’s Emma Crabtree, council members in NYC have introduced legislation targeted retail theft, which is believed to be costing the industry ~$100 billion annually. If said legislation is enacted, supermarkets and pharmacies in New York City would be both forced to increase staffing ratios attached to self-checkouts, as well as impose a 15-item limit. Under the proposed new rules, at least one worker must be present for each three active self-checkout registers.

“We’ve seen the consequences of removing workers from these spaces: increased retail theft, less oversight, fewer protections for both workers and customers, and generally decreased safety,” said Democrat Councilwoman Amanda Farias.

“This bill is about protecting good jobs, supporting workers on the front lines and creating a more secure shopping environment for New Yorkers,” she added.

Opposing the above view was Republican Councilwoman Joann Ariola. “Instead of actually trying to punish criminals, my colleagues are pushing to make life even harder for businesses and consumers,” Ariola said.

Ariola had some backing from Jason Ferraira, a board member with the National Supermarket Association. He termed the plan as a “horrible idea,” instead advocating for heightened police presence and harsher penalties around shoplifting.

The fine for failing to meet these expectations is set for a minimum of $100 per day of infraction.

Critics and Supporters Weigh In, and Connecticut Makes a Similar Move on Self-Checkouts

Earlier this month, Connecticut’s Labor Committee hosted a public hearing on the same subject. A proposed bill focused on two major fronts: that grocery stores state-wide ensure one worker monitoring each two active self-checkout stations, and that stores would face a hard limit of eight self-checkouts.

Arguing for the bill, United Food & Commercial Workers organizer Jake Serafini claimed that while self-checkout had its uses in certain cases, its proliferation had “come at a cost to workers and customers alike.”

“Cashier positions serve as important entry-level jobs for young workers, parents returning to the workforce, and people seeking steady employment in their communities. Maintaining a reasonable balance between staffed lanes and self-checkout stations ensures supermarkets continue to provide meaningful job opportunities,” Serafini said, going on to suggest that the majority of shoppers prefer human cashiers and that self-checkout machines often malfunctioned or created unnecessary confusion. He also suggested that retail theft tied to reliance on self-checkouts, intentional or otherwise, remained heightened.

Republicans in opposition to the bill indicated that they didn’t see how increased staffing or scrutiny of purchases would curb retail theft, given that many stores have policies against staff confronting suspected shoplifters. Further, Rep. Gale Mastrofrancesco had ideological concerns over the potential legislation.

“[It’s not the role of government to] tell a private business how many people they should staff when it comes to self-checkouts. To me, it’s un-American, to be quite honest with you,” said Mastrofrancesco. “Who are we, to tell a business like Stop and Shop, you’ve got to have so many people manning your self-checkout?” she said, moving on to say that organization around receipt-checking was already in place.

“If somebody doesn’t like that [self-checkouts] and they want to deal with a real person, then they don’t shop there anymore, and I believe that it would take care of itself,” she added, suggesting that excessive regulation of business could lead to a lack of jobs for younger job-seekers.

BrainTrust

"Restricting the number of items and increasing staff oversight both compromise the value that self-checkout offers. Theft's an issue, but more legislation is not the answer."
Avatar of Mark Ryski

Mark Ryski

Founder, CEO & Author, HeadCount Corporation


"With different store layouts, formats, and SKUs, each store will have unique staffing needs. Assigning an arbitrary ratio is an overreach."
Avatar of Frank Margolis

Frank Margolis

Executive Director, Growth Marketing & Business Development, Toshiba Global Commerce Solutions


"This is not a government matter. It beggars belief that they think it’s their job to tell retailers how to run their operations. Stop with the overreach!"
Avatar of Neil Saunders

Neil Saunders

Managing Director, GlobalData


Discussion Questions

Are the proposed self-checkout restrictions a good idea, in your opinion? Why or why not?

Are there any areas of compromise between the positions of advocates and critics when it comes to the future of retail self-checkouts? What would you suggest?

Poll

19 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mark Ryski

I’m with Rep. Mastrofrancesco on this one – it’s not government’s job to tell a retailer how many staff they should staff their stores with. These are business decisions that only the business operator should be making. Restricting the number of items and increasing staff oversight both compromise the full value that self-checkout offers. Theft is an issue, but more legislation is not the answer.  

Frank Margolis
Frank Margolis

With different store layouts, formats, and SKUs, each store will have unique staffing needs. Assigning an arbitrary ratio is an overreach – let each retailer decide on their own, and if they get it wrong, then they bear the consequences of their decision, namely higher shrink and lower customer satisfaction.

Robin M.
Robin M.
Reply to  Frank Margolis

Using broad stats (“theft, which is believed to be costing the industry ~$100 billion annually”) for government to solve individual business’ operations is odd.

It is not data supported that every store (type or location) has the same level of theft issue. Nor that those stores even have the same “self check out” option to start with.

Would retail owners prefer the local governments step up govt staffing? – to prosecute in court the offenders. The approach to CRIME should be in the govt jurisdiction.

Shep Hyken

If a retailer wants to use self-checkout, they should be allowed to do so, but they should also understand the consequences. All are listed in the article, but let’s start with theft and shoplifting. Does it really matter if it’s self-checkout or traditional checkouts? Depending on how the store is set up, the short answer is not much. Thieves will find a way to steal. A bigger issue is around what the customer wants. If the self-checkout is klunky and intuitive, without human support, you’ll cause the customer to have a bad experience. If there are long lines at the traditional checkout lanes, you’ll also cause customers to have a bad experience. Having someone to help those using self-checkout is a good answer. If you go 100% in on self-checkout, realize that unless it’s super-easy, you’ll lose customers.

Self-checkout is still evolving. Until it’s perfect, human assistance will be needed.

Perry Kramer
Perry Kramer

There is no one size fits all for Self Checkout (SCO) staffing or for the number of lanes in a store for that matter. Having a reasonable amount of staff to provide assistance, (and perceived asset protection), is a decision each retailer is much better suited to make than any legislator. The changes that AI combined with video analytics are going to make in the next 3 years are going result in SCO 3.0. Gone will be the days of scales in the bagging area that alert a lane attendant. The AI changes at SCO will probably drive a significant amount of what current theft is occurring at SCO back into the store aisles.

As far as personal safety goes: Extra Security or Police at the front of the store is all relative to the store profile and has nothing to do with the number of SCO lanes.

Last edited 1 day ago by Perry Kramer
Nolan Wheeler
Nolan Wheeler

Retailers ultimately live with the consequences of their checkout strategy. If their self-checkout-to-staff ratio is off, they’ll see it in shrink, staffing challenges, or customer frustrations and adjust accordingly. That feedback loop is why I think these decisions should be left to the retailer rather than set through blanket rules.

Neil Saunders

This is not a government matter. Governments of all shades can’t even get the basics of their own functions right. It beggars belief that they think it’s their job to tell retailers how to run their operations. Stop with the overreach!

Paula Rosenblum

Hw did it take 15 years to figure this out?

Craig Sundstrom
Craig Sundstrom

Sorry folks, one doesn’t have to get far in this article to reach a no – if not a “NO!!
If stores want to fall victim to theft, that’s their problem, not the government’s.

Last edited 1 day ago by Craig Sundstrom
Brad Halverson
Brad Halverson

Right, and while they’re at it, may as well require one worker per every shopper to walk your shopping cart around for you. So elected officials who have never successfully operated a grocery store feel they know enough to force grocers in how to run their stores yet have no interest in ensuring they can pay employees, pay vendors, make a profit, and pay taxes for the revenue they so badly want.

Bob Amster

It’s government overreach. It addresses the right problem; theft, with the wrong solution; dictating how self-checkout should be staffed. This the purview of the retailer and there retailer is not looking for government, municipalities, state, or federal, to solve it for hem. Maybe it’s a one-of suggestion…

Robin M.
Robin M.
Reply to  Bob Amster

the self check out is only 1 part of potential theft… others are at shelf, in store room, on delivery truck, etc

Govt should have bigger fish to fry… deterring crime & enforcing penalties for crime

Gene Detroyer
Reply to  Robin M.

Like shoplifting?

John Lietsch
John Lietsch

The problem here is one of transparency and trust. Are we really supposed to believe that the government cares about the losses associated with theft when it likely loses and wastes more in a month than the estimated losses cited in this article? If government was really worried about the societal costs of waste and loss then it would focus on its own house (both houses).

The bill is about saving jobs (and therefore votes) and I appreciate that. However, we shouldn’t pretend it’s about anything else. It certainly isn’t about protecting consumers like me who prefer self-checkout and who are willing to pay for it with our repeat business and loyalty.

Last edited 1 day ago by John Lietsch
Karen Wong
Karen Wong

In private businesses, it’s not the government’s job to dictate staffing arrangements or what type of technology or solutions to use. The market is generally very good at punishing businesses that don’t serve customers well, all on its own. There are no such restrictions where I’m based in Canada and I have noticed that some retailers are removing self-checkout on their own, likely due to unacceptable shrinkage. You shouldn’t be able to legislate / regulate your way to create mandatory jobs in private businesses.

The only point which makes sense are regulations requiring the acceptance of cash for essential retailers. But issues of payment methods and shrinkage management are things that need to be solved in the design and implementation of self-checkout technology.

Richard Hernandez
Richard Hernandez

It is definitely a store issue and labor (along with shrink) have always been topics with self-checkouts. It is up to the retailer to decide whether it makes sense to have them, invest in their success, or do away with them completely.

Scott Benedict
Scott Benedict

I tend to be skeptical of legislation that attempts to dictate how retailers operate without a deep understanding of the realities of store execution. Self-checkout is not a one-size-fits-all solution—it varies widely by format, basket size, store layout, and customer preference. Imposing blanket restrictions risks creating unintended consequences, including longer lines, higher labor costs, and reduced flexibility for both retailers and shoppers. There’s also a practical question of how such rules would be implemented and enforced across thousands of stores with different operating models. Retail is highly localized and dynamic, and rigid policy frameworks often struggle to keep pace with that complexity.

That said, the concerns driving these proposals—shrink, customer frustration, and job impacts—are legitimate. The path forward is less about restricting self-checkout and more about improving how it’s deployed. Retailers can segment usage by basket size, increase associate presence in self-checkout zones, and use technology to reduce friction and theft without eliminating the convenience customers value. There is also an opportunity to better train associates to provide assistance and maintain a visible service presence, which can address many of the complaints tied to the experience.

A reasonable middle ground is allowing retailers to retain operational flexibility while holding them accountable for outcomes—customer experience, safety, and shrink levels—rather than prescribing specific methods. Self-checkout is not going away, but it does need to evolve. The most effective approach will come from thoughtful retail execution and continuous improvement, not broad regulatory mandates that may not reflect how stores actually function day to day.

Gene Detroyer

I can’t add any more than my colleagues already have.

Representative Mastrofrancesco says it best. “[It’s not the role of government to] tell a private business how many people they should staff when it comes to self-checkouts. To me, it’s un-American…”

Anil Patel
Anil Patel

Restrictions on self-checkout address real concerns, but they do not solve the core issue. Retail theft and poor in-store experiences are often the result of gaps in store operations, not simply the presence of self-checkout. Limiting machines or increasing staffing ratios may improve oversight, but it also risks reducing convenience and increasing friction for customers.

The focus should be on balance rather than restriction. Self-checkout works well when supported by clear processes, the right level of staffing and better use of technology to reduce errors and shrink. Retailers that invest in smarter store operations while maintaining customer choice will be better positioned to improve both efficiency and trust.

19 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mark Ryski

I’m with Rep. Mastrofrancesco on this one – it’s not government’s job to tell a retailer how many staff they should staff their stores with. These are business decisions that only the business operator should be making. Restricting the number of items and increasing staff oversight both compromise the full value that self-checkout offers. Theft is an issue, but more legislation is not the answer.  

Frank Margolis
Frank Margolis

With different store layouts, formats, and SKUs, each store will have unique staffing needs. Assigning an arbitrary ratio is an overreach – let each retailer decide on their own, and if they get it wrong, then they bear the consequences of their decision, namely higher shrink and lower customer satisfaction.

Robin M.
Robin M.
Reply to  Frank Margolis

Using broad stats (“theft, which is believed to be costing the industry ~$100 billion annually”) for government to solve individual business’ operations is odd.

It is not data supported that every store (type or location) has the same level of theft issue. Nor that those stores even have the same “self check out” option to start with.

Would retail owners prefer the local governments step up govt staffing? – to prosecute in court the offenders. The approach to CRIME should be in the govt jurisdiction.

Shep Hyken

If a retailer wants to use self-checkout, they should be allowed to do so, but they should also understand the consequences. All are listed in the article, but let’s start with theft and shoplifting. Does it really matter if it’s self-checkout or traditional checkouts? Depending on how the store is set up, the short answer is not much. Thieves will find a way to steal. A bigger issue is around what the customer wants. If the self-checkout is klunky and intuitive, without human support, you’ll cause the customer to have a bad experience. If there are long lines at the traditional checkout lanes, you’ll also cause customers to have a bad experience. Having someone to help those using self-checkout is a good answer. If you go 100% in on self-checkout, realize that unless it’s super-easy, you’ll lose customers.

Self-checkout is still evolving. Until it’s perfect, human assistance will be needed.

Perry Kramer
Perry Kramer

There is no one size fits all for Self Checkout (SCO) staffing or for the number of lanes in a store for that matter. Having a reasonable amount of staff to provide assistance, (and perceived asset protection), is a decision each retailer is much better suited to make than any legislator. The changes that AI combined with video analytics are going to make in the next 3 years are going result in SCO 3.0. Gone will be the days of scales in the bagging area that alert a lane attendant. The AI changes at SCO will probably drive a significant amount of what current theft is occurring at SCO back into the store aisles.

As far as personal safety goes: Extra Security or Police at the front of the store is all relative to the store profile and has nothing to do with the number of SCO lanes.

Last edited 1 day ago by Perry Kramer
Nolan Wheeler
Nolan Wheeler

Retailers ultimately live with the consequences of their checkout strategy. If their self-checkout-to-staff ratio is off, they’ll see it in shrink, staffing challenges, or customer frustrations and adjust accordingly. That feedback loop is why I think these decisions should be left to the retailer rather than set through blanket rules.

Neil Saunders

This is not a government matter. Governments of all shades can’t even get the basics of their own functions right. It beggars belief that they think it’s their job to tell retailers how to run their operations. Stop with the overreach!

Paula Rosenblum

Hw did it take 15 years to figure this out?

Craig Sundstrom
Craig Sundstrom

Sorry folks, one doesn’t have to get far in this article to reach a no – if not a “NO!!
If stores want to fall victim to theft, that’s their problem, not the government’s.

Last edited 1 day ago by Craig Sundstrom
Brad Halverson
Brad Halverson

Right, and while they’re at it, may as well require one worker per every shopper to walk your shopping cart around for you. So elected officials who have never successfully operated a grocery store feel they know enough to force grocers in how to run their stores yet have no interest in ensuring they can pay employees, pay vendors, make a profit, and pay taxes for the revenue they so badly want.

Bob Amster

It’s government overreach. It addresses the right problem; theft, with the wrong solution; dictating how self-checkout should be staffed. This the purview of the retailer and there retailer is not looking for government, municipalities, state, or federal, to solve it for hem. Maybe it’s a one-of suggestion…

Robin M.
Robin M.
Reply to  Bob Amster

the self check out is only 1 part of potential theft… others are at shelf, in store room, on delivery truck, etc

Govt should have bigger fish to fry… deterring crime & enforcing penalties for crime

Gene Detroyer
Reply to  Robin M.

Like shoplifting?

John Lietsch
John Lietsch

The problem here is one of transparency and trust. Are we really supposed to believe that the government cares about the losses associated with theft when it likely loses and wastes more in a month than the estimated losses cited in this article? If government was really worried about the societal costs of waste and loss then it would focus on its own house (both houses).

The bill is about saving jobs (and therefore votes) and I appreciate that. However, we shouldn’t pretend it’s about anything else. It certainly isn’t about protecting consumers like me who prefer self-checkout and who are willing to pay for it with our repeat business and loyalty.

Last edited 1 day ago by John Lietsch
Karen Wong
Karen Wong

In private businesses, it’s not the government’s job to dictate staffing arrangements or what type of technology or solutions to use. The market is generally very good at punishing businesses that don’t serve customers well, all on its own. There are no such restrictions where I’m based in Canada and I have noticed that some retailers are removing self-checkout on their own, likely due to unacceptable shrinkage. You shouldn’t be able to legislate / regulate your way to create mandatory jobs in private businesses.

The only point which makes sense are regulations requiring the acceptance of cash for essential retailers. But issues of payment methods and shrinkage management are things that need to be solved in the design and implementation of self-checkout technology.

Richard Hernandez
Richard Hernandez

It is definitely a store issue and labor (along with shrink) have always been topics with self-checkouts. It is up to the retailer to decide whether it makes sense to have them, invest in their success, or do away with them completely.

Scott Benedict
Scott Benedict

I tend to be skeptical of legislation that attempts to dictate how retailers operate without a deep understanding of the realities of store execution. Self-checkout is not a one-size-fits-all solution—it varies widely by format, basket size, store layout, and customer preference. Imposing blanket restrictions risks creating unintended consequences, including longer lines, higher labor costs, and reduced flexibility for both retailers and shoppers. There’s also a practical question of how such rules would be implemented and enforced across thousands of stores with different operating models. Retail is highly localized and dynamic, and rigid policy frameworks often struggle to keep pace with that complexity.

That said, the concerns driving these proposals—shrink, customer frustration, and job impacts—are legitimate. The path forward is less about restricting self-checkout and more about improving how it’s deployed. Retailers can segment usage by basket size, increase associate presence in self-checkout zones, and use technology to reduce friction and theft without eliminating the convenience customers value. There is also an opportunity to better train associates to provide assistance and maintain a visible service presence, which can address many of the complaints tied to the experience.

A reasonable middle ground is allowing retailers to retain operational flexibility while holding them accountable for outcomes—customer experience, safety, and shrink levels—rather than prescribing specific methods. Self-checkout is not going away, but it does need to evolve. The most effective approach will come from thoughtful retail execution and continuous improvement, not broad regulatory mandates that may not reflect how stores actually function day to day.

Gene Detroyer

I can’t add any more than my colleagues already have.

Representative Mastrofrancesco says it best. “[It’s not the role of government to] tell a private business how many people they should staff when it comes to self-checkouts. To me, it’s un-American…”

Anil Patel
Anil Patel

Restrictions on self-checkout address real concerns, but they do not solve the core issue. Retail theft and poor in-store experiences are often the result of gaps in store operations, not simply the presence of self-checkout. Limiting machines or increasing staffing ratios may improve oversight, but it also risks reducing convenience and increasing friction for customers.

The focus should be on balance rather than restriction. Self-checkout works well when supported by clear processes, the right level of staffing and better use of technology to reduce errors and shrink. Retailers that invest in smarter store operations while maintaining customer choice will be better positioned to improve both efficiency and trust.

More Discussions