§ 124.003.Immunity from Criminal and Civil Liability

The provision that makes diversion safe to offer.

A person who offers or provides a theft education program in compliance with this chapter is not criminally or civilly liable for failure to notify a law enforcement agency of the suspected theft or attempted theft.

The immunity is narrow and precise. It covers one thing — the failure to report — and nothing else. A merchant who detains someone unreasonably, or defames them, or runs the program improperly, is exposed as they would be otherwise.

"In compliance with this chapter" is the condition, and it does real work. A merchant who skipped the notice duties, failed to keep the records, or offered a program not meeting the content standards has no immunity, because the compliance condition is not met.

Both criminal and civil liability are covered, which matters because failing to report can carry consequences on both sides — and because a merchant weighing diversion needs certainty about both.

The section protects the provider as well as the merchant — "offers or provides" reaches both roles.

Why the immunity is needed at all is worth stating. Diversion means a suspected offense goes unreported, and without protection a merchant might face an argument that they concealed a crime or owed some duty to report it. The section removes the question.