The problem is that this opens up an obvious vulnerability - underfund the department that's supposed to ensure compliance so that you effectively end up breaking the law at scale and yet retain this plausible deniability.

The only way out is to reverse the situation - companies should have even less leniency. You can't expect a single person to know the specifics of every law or to pay attention 100% of the time, but you can absolutely expect a company to be able to hire the necessary manpower to ensure near-bulletproof compliance.

> It's not a question of ignorance, it's a question of intent.

> If you walk into Walmart and intentionally walk out with a banana without paying, you can't get out of prosecution by claiming that you didn't know it was illegal to do that.

> If, on the other hand, you accidentally neglect to scan the banana at the self checkout then it is a valid defense to say that you thought you'd already scanned it in and you must have gotten confused by all the other items you were handling.

> Theft requires intent.

No one will care what you say when you will get caught. https://www.good.is/lawyer-explains-the-risk-of-using-self-c...