And it's a problem especially since a large chunk of the money does not go to the retailer but to some other party who has a large incentive to get you to settle.
But this deal does not involve determining guilt either (in any legal sense), they are merely signing an obligation to take a course.
You can bet that if the people then struggle with paying for the course, CEC will threaten to present this admission to the cops.
The article also states that:
If someone started to take the course and paid for it—if they change their mind and they want to get their day in court, we’ll refund their money and put the case back in the retailer’s hands. They’ve got multiple opportunities to step back from this.
So I'm not sure how the two of those square.
I'm not vouching for this sort of practice (and it's probably been abused) - but it may in fact be preferable for a dumb young teenager/adult, to take an online course, than to have theft on their criminal record (that would probably make it pretty hard to find employment, even at a crappy job).
If you refuse to pay after the fact, and decide you should have rights after all, then the retailer can send the police your signed admission of guilt - at which point due process disappears. That admission represents credible blackmail material to get you to pay.
"Sign this sheet of paper that says you murdered someone and pay me $50,000, or I will accuse you of murder publicly"
Making this proposition is very likely a criminal offense independently of whether it would be a false police report or not.
Although it's probably more likely that you can't sign away or admit guilt without correct legal procedure, and such documents are simply not worth anything (i.e. like user-agreements which supposedly say you waive your rights to legal action). Would be interesting to see someone with a legal background comment on this.