Chicago Instacart Video Myths: What to Know in 2026

There is a surprising amount of misinformation circulating about surveillance footage related to incidents involving Instacart shoppers in Chicago. This article will dismantle common myths surrounding video evidence in personal injury and workers’ compensation claims, particularly when an Instacart shopper in Chicago is involved.

Myth 1: All Incidents Involving an Instacart Shopper in Chicago are Captured on High-Quality Surveillance

It’s a common misconception that every street corner and business in Chicago is blanketed with cameras continuously recording high-definition footage. While Chicago does have a significant network of public and private surveillance, relying solely on this assumption can be a critical mistake in a personal injury or workers’ compensation claim. Many areas, particularly residential streets or less frequented commercial zones, may have limited or no camera coverage. Even where cameras exist, their quality varies widely. We’ve reviewed countless hours of footage that are grainy, poorly lit, or obstructed, rendering them less useful than hoped. Plus, the type of cameras involved makes a difference. Public safety cameras operated by the City of Chicago might cover major intersections, but they aren’t designed to capture every detail of a delivery vehicle’s movement or a pedestrian’s fall on a sidewalk. Retail stores, on the other hand, typically focus their cameras on entrances, exits, and high-value merchandise areas, with less attention paid to parking lots or exterior walkways where an Instacart shopper might experience an accident. For example, a slip and fall in a grocery store aisle might be well-documented, but a collision with an Instacart delivery vehicle in the store’s parking lot might only be visible from a distance, if at all.

Myth 2: Surveillance Footage is Automatically Preserved Indefinitely

This is perhaps the most dangerous myth, leading to the loss of invaluable evidence. Many people assume that once an incident occurs, any relevant video will be stored indefinitely by the recording entity. This is simply not true. Most surveillance systems, whether for a retail establishment, a residential building, or a public camera network, operate on a cyclical recording schedule. Storage space is finite, and older footage is routinely overwritten to make room for new recordings. From my experience representing individuals in Georgia personal injury and workers’ compensation cases, we often see a retention period of just 7 to 30 days. For critical evidence, this short window means that if you don’t act quickly to request and preserve the footage, it will be gone forever. This is why immediate action after an incident is paramount. Sending a formal preservation letter (a spoliation letter) to all potential custodians of footage, be it a store, a property owner, or even a local municipality, is a non-negotiable first step. Without this, even if the footage initially existed, its absence cannot be held against the opposing party if they weren’t formally notified of its importance. This isn’t just a best practice. It’s a legal necessity to prevent the destruction of evidence, as outlined in common law principles of evidence preservation.

Myth 3: Instacart Itself Maintains Extensive Driver-Facing Camera Footage

Unlike some commercial trucking companies or ride-sharing services that mandate in-vehicle cameras, Instacart’s policy regarding driver-facing or dash camera usage by its independent contractors is less uniform. Instacart shoppers are independent contractors, and while some may choose to install their own dash cameras for personal protection or insurance purposes, Instacart does not generally provide or require these devices. Therefore, assuming that Instacart will have internal video of an incident involving one of its shoppers is often incorrect. If an Instacart shopper was involved in a car accident in Chicago, for instance, any dash cam footage would likely belong to the individual shopper, not Instacart. Obtaining this footage would involve a discovery process directed at the shopper themselves, or their insurance carrier, rather than Instacart’s corporate offices. This distinction is important for attorneys investigating such incidents. Plus, Instacart’s primary focus is on the delivery process itself, not on providing complete surveillance for every journey. Their internal systems might log delivery times and locations, but this data typically doesn’t include video. Any internal “footage” would more likely be limited to incidents reported within a store by store security, or perhaps customer-reported issues that lead to Instacart’s own internal review, which is a different category of evidence entirely.

Myth 4: Public Surveillance Footage is Easily Accessible to Anyone

While Chicago has extensive public surveillance, particularly the network managed by the Office of Emergency Management and Communications (OEMC), accessing this footage isn’t as simple as making a phone call. Public cameras are primarily for public safety and law enforcement purposes. For an individual to obtain footage from these sources, there typically needs to be an ongoing police investigation or a formal legal request. Even then, the process can be lengthy. Requests often require specific details about the date, time, and exact location of the incident. Law enforcement agencies prioritize serious crimes, and a personal injury claim might not receive immediate attention for footage requests. A subpeona, issued by a court, is often required to compel the release of such recordings. This shows the need for legal representation from the outset. An attorney understands the proper channels and legal instruments required to navigate these bureaucratic hurdles, ensuring that requests are properly formatted and submitted in a timely manner to maximize the chances of obtaining relevant video evidence. We’ve seen cases where delays in making these formal requests have meant the footage was deleted before it could be secured.

Myth 5: If No Footage is Found, the Case is Weak

It’s tempting to think that without video evidence, a personal injury or workers’ compensation claim is inherently weak. While video footage can be incredibly powerful, its absence does not automatically doom a case. Many successful claims are built on other forms of evidence, including eyewitness testimony, accident reports, medical records, photographic evidence of injuries and scene damage, and expert analysis. Consider a workers’ compensation claim where an Instacart shopper in Chicago sustains an injury while lifting heavy groceries in a customer’s home. There’s unlikely to be video footage of this specific incident. However, the worker’s consistent medical treatment, the employer’s incident report, and the worker’s credible testimony about the event can collectively form a strong basis for the claim. Similarly, in a car accident case, if no dashcam or public surveillance footage is available, detailed police reports, vehicle damage assessments, and witness statements can still provide a clear picture of what transpired. The strength of a case lies in the totality of the evidence, not just the presence or absence of one type of evidence. Plus, a skilled attorney can sometimes use the absence of footage (if it was destroyed despite a preservation request) to argue for an adverse inference against the party that failed to preserve it, suggesting the footage would have been unfavorable to them. This is a complex legal strategy, but it highlights that even a lack of video isn’t always a dead end.

Myth 6: All Video Evidence is Unquestionably Admissible in Court

While video footage can be compelling, its admissibility in court is not guaranteed. There are several legal hurdles that must be cleared before a video can be presented to a jury. First, the video must be authenticated. This means proving that the footage is a true and accurate representation of what it purports to depict, that it hasn’t been tampered with, and that it comes from a reliable source. This often requires testimony from the person who operated the camera or maintained the recording system. Second, the footage must be relevant to the case. A lengthy video showing unrelated activities would likely be deemed irrelevant and inadmissible. Third, the video must not be overly prejudicial. For example, if a video is extremely graphic and its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value, a judge may choose to exclude it. Attorneys often need to establish a clear chain of custody for the video evidence, demonstrating how it was obtained, stored, and preserved to ensure its integrity. These steps are important for ensuring that video evidence, once obtained, can actually be used to support a claim. In Georgia, the rules of evidence, specifically O.C.G.A. § 24-9-901, govern the authentication of evidence, including video recordings, requiring foundational proof of its accuracy and reliability. Securing surveillance footage related to an Instacart shopper in Chicago requires prompt action, a clear understanding of legal processes, and a realistic expectation of what such evidence can provide. Do not delay in seeking legal counsel if you believe video evidence exists for your injury claim.