That sounds like government BS although I'm not surprised. It's interesting that there are states that prevent individuals from making arrests but allow businesses to do so.
It makes some degree of sense, since a business can designate certain people (like Max) responsible for conducting the arrest, establish written policies containing "rules of engagement", and require them to attend training, the contents of which can be documented. There's no guarantee that, without training, a random citizen will perform the due diligence needed before escalating to an arrest. Go on Nextdoor or someplace like that and see how many people raise the alarm about "suspicious people" engaging in perfectly ordinary behavior like jogging or sitting on a park bench.
I don't necessarily think that businesses should be engaging in arrests either, though. Unlike the police, their interest is not necessarily in making sure justice is done, but in protecting profit margins by recouping the costs of stolen goods. If someone is incorrectly accused of theft and is under the perceived threat of being cuffed and left in an office for hours while the cops show up, they may just decide to pay for the supposed stolen item and escape the situation, which suits the business just fine, but isn't just. Additionally, some businesses adhere too rigidly to the idea that computer algorithms are infallible and increasingly try to use them inappropriately to replace human thinking. I wouldn't want to get citizen-arrested in Whole Foods because some Amazon surveillance-camera algorithm misidentified me adjusting my keys in my pocket as slipping unpaid-for merchandise inside.
