A Shop Accused Me of Stealing: What Changed in 2026

A shop accused me of stealing is a search people type from the car park, usually within an hour of being stopped at the door, asked to open a bag, and told in front of a queue that something has not been paid for. Since 1 March 2026 that claim has a new defence to get past: the retail inquiry privilege in section 18(1A) of the Defamation Act 2009, inserted by the Defamation (Amendment) Act 2026. This guide explains what the privilege covers, the three conditions attached to it, what still succeeds after it, and the evidence that has to be gathered in the first days.

1. A Shop Accused Me of Stealing: Is That a Statement?

Section 6 of the Defamation Act 2009 defines the tort: a statement that tends to injure a person’s reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society, published to at least one person other than the plaintiff, that identifies the plaintiff. “You have not paid for that”, said to you in the hearing of the customer behind you, is a statement published to one other person, and an accusation of theft tends to injure reputation on any view. The 2009 Act abolished the separate torts of libel and slander, so the fact that the words were spoken rather than written changes nothing, and an individual does not have to prove financial loss. The history of that distinction, and why the shop floor is where it mattered most, is in libel vs slander: why Ireland has one tort.

2. Section 18(1A): The Three Conditions

Qualified privilege under section 18 protects a statement made by a person with a duty or interest in making it to a person with a corresponding duty or interest in receiving it, and is lost where the plaintiff proves malice. The 2026 Act added subsection (1A), which applies that privilege to a retailer’s inquiry whether goods or services were paid for. Three conditions attach, and a retailer relying on it needs all three.

• Duty or interest: the person making the inquiry had a duty or interest in making it. A security guard, a manager or a member of staff at the till has one. A customer who joins in does not.
• Publication not excessive: the inquiry was made to the people who needed to hear it and no further. A quiet question at the door is one thing; the same words across a shop floor, or to a queue of twenty, are another.
• Good faith: the inquiry was made in good faith. A question prompted by a genuine belief that an item had not gone through the till is in good faith. A question used to humiliate, or prompted by who you are rather than what was seen, is not.

The privilege is written for the inquiry, and the word is chosen. It protects a retailer asking, in the right way, to the right people, with the right motive, whether something was paid for. The practice page on being falsely accused of shoplifting sets out the claim from the incident to the order.

3. Inquiry Versus Accusation

The first thing that still succeeds is the accusation that was never an inquiry at all. “Did that go through the till?” is an inquiry. “You stole that”, “we have you on camera”, “you are barred, we know what you are” are not inquiries whether goods were paid for; they are statements of fact that you are a thief. Section 18(1A) extends privilege to an inquiry, and a statement that asserts guilt rather than asks about payment falls outside its words. The distinction turns on exactly what was said, which is why the first task after the incident is to write down the words, in order, and to note who said them and who could hear.

4. Excessive Publication: Who Else Heard It

The second thing that still succeeds is the inquiry made to too many people. The condition is that publication was not excessive, and the ordinary shop accusation fails it: the words are said at the door as other customers pass, the bag is emptied onto a counter in view of the queue, a manager repeats the accusation on the shop floor when a quiet office was available. Each extra listener who had no duty or interest in hearing it is publication beyond what the privilege allows. The evidence is the CCTV and the witnesses, dealt with below. The number of people who heard goes to whether the privilege applies at all, and then to the extent of publication under section 31 when damages are assessed.

5. Bad Faith, Detention and Restraint

The third condition is good faith, and the ordinary meaning of qualified privilege applies alongside it: under section 18 the privilege is lost where the plaintiff proves malice. An inquiry made with knowledge that nothing had been taken, or made for a reason other than a genuine question about payment, is outside the privilege. The clearest cases are the guard who follows a customer through the shop before any item has been handled, the accusation repeated after the receipt has been produced, and the inquiry directed at one customer among many because of how they look. Section 18(1A) also protects an inquiry and nothing else. It says nothing about blocking the door, taking your bag, holding your arm or keeping you in a back room. Those are not an inquiry whether goods were paid for, and a claim arising from them sits outside the privilege altogether. The full set of defences a retailer may raise, and the facts each needs, is in defences to defamation: truth, honest opinion and privilege.

6. Identification: Gallagher v O’Brien Retail Concepts

The third element of section 6 is that the statement identifies the plaintiff, and in a shop it is usually obvious: the words were said to your face. Gallagher v O’Brien Retail Concepts [2025] IEHC 85 is the High Court decision on identification in a shop accusation, which is to say whether the words were understood to refer to the plaintiff at all. It is cited here only as that, and we do not generalise from it. The point for your own claim is that identification has to be proved like the other elements: the people who heard the words must have understood them to be about you, which they will have where you were the person named, pointed at or searched.

7. The Evidence: CCTV Under GDPR Article 15 and Witnesses

The shop holds the evidence, and you are entitled to ask for it. A data subject access request under GDPR Article 15 entitles you to a copy of the personal data the retailer holds about you, which includes CCTV footage in which you appear and any incident report, radio log or internal note about the stop, subject to the exemptions for other people’s data. Send it in writing to the retailer, give the store, the date and the time, describe where you were, and ask that the footage be preserved while the request is processed. Footage is routinely overwritten after a short period, so the request goes in within days. The footage will show who was present, how close they stood and how long it lasted, which goes to excessive publication, and whether the words were said before or after you produced a receipt, which goes to good faith.

Witnesses are the other half. Write down the names and numbers of anyone who was with you and anyone who paused to watch, if you have them, and a description of the staff involved. Keep your receipt and any bank record of the payment. Write your own account of the words used, in order, on the day. Do not post about the incident on social media, and do not go back to the shop to argue; both produce a second dispute.

8. The One-Year Limit, the Letter and the Remedies

Section 38 gives one year from the date the words were spoken, extendable by the court to a maximum of two years only where the interests of justice require it, which the courts apply strictly. A complaint to the shop, a solicitor’s letter or an access request does not pause the clock. The practical timetable is shorter than the legal one, because the footage is overwritten and witnesses forget. A solicitor’s letter to the retailer, quoted as a fixed sum after the consultation, sets out the words, the listeners and why section 18(1A) does not apply, and seeks an apology, which under section 24 is not an admission of liability, together with an undertaking and compensation. If that does not resolve it, the Circuit Court, with its €75,000 jurisdiction in defamation, can grant a declaratory order under section 28 that the statement was false and defamatory, a correction order under section 30 and damages under section 31. Court proceedings carry a risk of being ordered to pay the other side’s costs if the claim fails, and most Circuit Court defamation claims settle before hearing. Run the facts through the Defamation Claim Checker first.

Retailers who have received a letter about an incident get the same analysis from the other side: whether the words were an inquiry, who heard them, and whether the three conditions in section 18(1A) are met on the footage. We act for people accused in shops and for retailers accused of defaming them, never for both sides of the same dispute.