The unions denounce this method as unrealistic: lipsticks or mascara were hidden in closed packages or among larger boxes, making it almost impossible to notice them during scanning and putting employees in an artificial position of error. The test is part of the practice of “mystery shopping,” which is lawful if aimed at evaluating service, but potentially problematic when it becomes an indirect control over worker performance. The Workers' Statute allows covert checks only to protect company assets, not to monitor productivity or diligence.

The case in question falls into a gray area: if an investigator were tasked with verifying a concrete suspicion of theft, the check would be legitimate; but deliberately hiding objects to “test” an employee turns the inspector into an agent provocateur, making the procedure potentially illegitimate, because it does not start from a well-founded suspicion, but artificially creates the circumstance to be sanctioned. If the evidence were found to be irregular, it could not be used to justify dismissal. If, on the other hand, it were deemed valid, the judge would still have to assess its proportionality, taking into account the minimal value of the hidden items, the working conditions (fast pace, demands for speed at the cash registers), and any previous disciplinary actions against the employees involved.