Modern-Day ‘Robin Hoods’ Steal From Bezos to Give to Themselves

A growing trend of individuals shoplifting from Amazon-owned Whole Foods and other Bezos-affiliated companies as an act of defiance against billionaire Jeff Bezos had recently been highlighted by Business Insider’s Emily Stewart. According to Fox Business, Stewart’s article, titled “The Rise of the Anti-Amazon Avengers,” explores the motivations behind these thefts, which are often framed as a form of protest against Bezos’ business practices and political decisions.

Stewart interviewed several individuals who admitted to stealing from Amazon or Whole Foods, often justifying their actions as a way to “take from the rich to give to the poor,” with the “poor” being themselves. Stewart described the individuals as having a “Robin Hood-esque” mentality as they cited grievances such as Amazon’s market dominance, Bezos’ immense wealth, and his “political shifts” regarding The Washington Post, which he owns, and President Trump.

One source of contention was Bezos’ refusal to have “The Washington Post” endorse a candidate during the 2024 presidential election. This decision, followed by his meeting with then-President-elect Donald Trump and subsequent editorial changes emphasizing “personal liberties and free markets,” sparked backlash among critics. Some see these moves as aligning with Trump, further fueling resentment toward Bezos.

The shoplifters interviewed by Stewart employed various methods to justify their actions. For example, a young communications professional in Washington, D.C., admitted to minor thefts like underreporting items at self-checkout or pocketing spices. He rationalized his actions by pointing to Amazon’s market power and Bezos’ wealth. Another individual, pseudonymously named “Carson,” confessed to stealing expensive items like salmon lox from Whole Foods and engaging in return fraud on Amazon, saving approximately $1,000 annually. He likened Bezos to the villain Lex Luthor, questioning who is truly harmed in what he called a “dehumanized system.”

“If a billionaire can steal from me, I can scrape a little off the top, too,” one said.

“[Bezos] just profits so much taking advantage of the little people, so if we as little people can bite back a little bit, and that’s me taking $100 maybe out of revenue for him, that’s a little bit of a middle finger,” one person pseudo-named “Jesse” said.

Others took a more symbolic approach. A government worker pseudonymously called “Jimmy” compared himself to Batman, targeting Amazon for return fraud by swapping broken items for new ones. He dismissed concerns about the company’s financial losses, stating that such actions were insignificant compared to Amazon’s vast profits.

Despite these justifications, Stewart argued that such thefts are counterproductive and harmful.

“None of what they’re doing is actually making the type of impact they might like to see, and they’re conveniently ignoring Bezos’ positive contributions, such as his philanthropy. And they could be causing unintended harm to the non-Bezoses of the world, as in, everyone else. Many retailers have put items behind glass cases to combat theft, which is a headache for everybody,” she said. “Shoplifting can demoralize workers, and if enough people do it, it may lead companies to raise prices, or in the case of return fraud, mean businesses make sending unwanted items back a lot harder.”

Stewart concluded her report by acknowledging the frustration driving these acts but cautioned against their broader impact on society. She noted that while shoplifting may be less destructive than setting Teslas on fire—a reference to other forms of anti-billionaire protests—she argues that it remains an ineffective way of addressing such issues.