The story was seen on Moonbattery, a site with crazy political things, that links to Breitbart who did the original reporting.
Moonbattery suggests Walmart has three options:
1. Remove the locked cases and let thieves help themselves with law-abiding shoppers picking up the tab for theft through higher prices for everything.
2. Lock up the other products too, inconveniencing everyone because of the lawlessness of a minority.
3. Issue a statement that those who don't want to be treated like thieves should refrain from stealing lawn flamingos.
Moonbattery concludes, since #3 is the only one that make sense it can be ruled out immediately.
Such nonsense. Those are not the only options.
That doesn't address the law suit. Walmart can also go to court and prevail. Or lose. They can increase prices on lawn flamingos and leave all other products unaffected. That still affects innocent lawn flamingo purchasers but it goes with the territory of that particular product for its unique theft problem.
The thing is, we have a word for this phenomenon and it's hurtful, "profiling." And it is actual forensic profiling. The numbers indicate this specific item is most frequently shoplifted, so this specific item is protected specifically. By the numbers, not by bias and not by ill feelings, one type of person most often buys lawn flamingos and all marketing targets this type person, so easily identified by sight, really is genuine profiling. So what? It's how we make sense of the world. No apologies if by no fault of your own you find yourself in the profiled group. Fact: you are profiled in a group with a strong tendency to nick lawn flamingos. Perhaps out of embarrassment. Perhaps due to being short of cash. Perhaps because lawn flamingos are overly expensive due to constant theft. Whatever. Too bad for you. The world is not fair.
One last thing, since the term profiling is used in its hot button political sense in the lawsuit, we can look at the political cause of the profiling. This group targeted and profiled for marketing and for protecting against theft is also targeted by a specific political party with their own marketing and with tremendous success over generations, to receive lagniappes from government so long as there is no man in the household. So long as a woman is straddled with raising children without the assistance of a husband for support. So this group, by the numbers, by the targeting, is well know to have adapted to take advantage of these benefits, so that over time they've become the most fatherless family of all the other groups so well tracked and studied, and that is straight up sensible professional profiling. Genuinely profiled. So there is a history through generations where there is no father to discipline and train and show how to exist without stealing.
Maybe it's best to read the articles yourself. I have a tendency to mix up crucial elements. My reading comprehension is poor sometimes.