According to Silicon Republic, grocery delivery giant Instacart has agreed to pay a $60 million settlement to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for customer refunds, announced on December 18. The FTC accused the company of using deceptive advertising, like promising “free delivery” while tacking on mandatory service fees of up to 15% and hiding refund options. They also alleged Instacart misled customers with a “100% satisfaction guarantee” that rarely gave full refunds and failed to clearly disclose that free trials would automatically roll into paid subscriptions for Instacart+. In a blog post responding to the settlement, Instacart’s leadership, now under CEO Chris Rogers, rejected the claims, stating they “flatly deny any allegations of wrongdoing” and called the FTC’s inquiry “fundamentally flawed.” The settlement requires Instacart to cease these practices, but reports suggest the FTC is also investigating the company’s AI-driven pricing tool, Eversight.
The Standard Playbook
Here’s the thing: this is becoming a familiar script in tech. A regulator slaps a company with a massive fine for shady practices, and the company agrees to pay while vehemently denying any guilt. Instacart’s statement is almost a carbon copy of what we’ve seen from others. They pay the money to “move forward,” treating the settlement as a cost of doing business rather than an admission of fault. But for consumers, the details are pretty damning. Hiding the refund button? That’s not a “fundamentally flawed” inquiry—that’s a deliberate design choice to make getting your money back harder. And the old free-trial trap is so tired at this point, it’s almost embarrassing. You’d think a major company would have moved past these dark patterns by now.
Beyond The Refunds
So the $60 million hurts, but Instacart can probably absorb it. The more interesting part is what comes next. The FTC explicitly said it’s “focused on monitoring online delivery services” for transparency. That’s a warning shot not just at Instacart, but at every food and grocery delivery app out there. And then there’s the other reported investigation into Eversight, their AI pricing software. If the FTC is digging into algorithmic pricing that can make customers pay 23% more for the same item, that’s a whole other level of scrutiny. It moves the conversation from basic consumer deception to the opaque, potentially anti-competitive world of AI-driven dynamic pricing. That’s a much bigger fight.
A Shifting Landscape
Instacart’s settlement arrives as the company is under new leadership and the entire gig economy delivery model is being questioned. Consumers are getting fed up with the barrage of fees—delivery fees, service fees, priority fees, tip prompts. The value proposition is getting murky. When you combine that fatigue with aggressive regulatory attention, the easy growth phase is clearly over. Companies will need to actually be transparent, which might mean lower profits in the short term. Can they adapt? Or will they just find new, subtler ways to nudge users into paying more? I’m skeptical, but the FTC’s watchful eye means the stakes for getting caught are now a bit higher than just a sternly worded blog post.
