On page 13 you'll see _why_ the judges don't apply the letter of the law - they're seeking to do justice to the victims _in spite of_ the law.
"there is another possible explanation: the human judges seek to do justice. The materials include a gruesome description of the injuries the plaintiff sustained in the automobile accident. The court in the earlier proceeding found that she was entitled to [details] a total of $750,000.10. It then noted that she would be entitled to that full amount under Nebraska law but only $250,000 under Kansas law." So the judge's decision "reflects a moral view that victims should be fully compensated ... This bias is reflected in Klerman and Spamann’s data: only 31% of judges applied the cap (i.e., chose Kansas law), compared to the expected 46% if judges were purely following the law." "By contrast, GPT applied the cap precisely"
Far from making the case for AI as a judge, this paper highlights what happens when AI systematically applies (often harsh) laws vs the empathy of experienced human judgement.
I live in MA and wish that this were true, but do you have data / evidence to support that it rarely happens?
Also, I don't know if you have tried to get your $10, but it's not like the sign is always obvious and every time I've tried, it's not like the cashier says "oops" and gives you the thing for free - they call a manager, the manager argues with you, other customers complain about the checkout delay you've created... there's social pressure there so I can understand why customers would not do this even when they can.