Instacart will pay $60 million to customers to settle a Federal Trade Commission case accusing the grocery delivery platform of having deceived shoppers with claims for “free delivery,” a “100% satisfaction guarantee,” and vague terms of subscriptions for its Instacart+ membership. The payout is one of the largest consumer redress orders coming out of the F.T.C.’s broader push against misleading online advertising and subscription practices.
More than the money, Instacart agreed to revise its practices on how it pitches delivery fees and subscriptions, agree to plain-language disclosures, and to get what is known as express consent for recurring charges — changes that could have wide-reaching ramifications across the on-demand delivery industry.
What the FTC said Instacart did in deceptive claims
In the case of Instacart, the company allegedly touted “free delivery” to consumers on their first order but would also still require they pay service fees that could go as high as 15%, according to the FTC complaint. Regulators contended that sharing a $0 delivery message without emphasizing other mandatory fees could cause consumers to be misled about the overall cost of an order.
The agency also called out Instacart’s “100% satisfaction guarantee,” describing the pledge as suggesting that full refunds would be issued even when that was not extended to consumers. Pursuant to the FTC Act, advertisers must disclose clearly and conspicuously all material limitations on a product’s performance and provide an amount of redress equivalent to what they promised.
Finally, the FTC said that Instacart failed to properly disclose that free trials for Instacart+ would switch over to paid plans if not canceled and that shoppers were charged automatically. And these “negative option” cases are a priority in FTC enforcement right now – the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act makes it illegal to charge people for stuff through a negative option plan unless they clearly understood what they were getting into and had an easy way to stop and cancel.
Consumer protection officials said the case is a part of what they see as a broader crackdown on “junk fees” and dark patterns — design tactics that nudge people into fees or subscriptions that they did not mean to accept. Recent FTC activity in the area has honed in on murky enrollment flows, prechecked boxes, and cancel paths that feel hidden.
Instacart’s response and compliance promises
Instacart has denied wrongdoing, saying its fee and subscription disclosures are clear and that Instacart+ is meant to be straightforward and easy to cancel. The company said it does not admit any liability with the settlement, but decided to put the litigation behind it.
As part of the settlement, which has a financial penalty of more than $11 million but will be partially suspended because Instacart does not have sufficient funds to pay the entire amount, Instacart agreed to no longer make deceptive delivery claims and must provide clear upfront details about all mandatory fees before a customer checks out; disclose key terms associated with an “Instacart+” trial offer; obtain express consent for any recurring charges; and offer a cancellation process that is as simple as sign-up. These provisions are in keeping with the FTC’s typical subscription-compliance framework: no undisclosed fees, no “gotcha” fine print, and no delayed, log-in-now-to-cancel foot-dragging.
How the $60 million gets to consumers in refunds
The FTC typically sends settlement funds to consumers in its redress program through checks or electronic payments and directly contacts those who qualify. Shoppers who paid service fees on orders promoted as offering free delivery; customers who got no satisfaction (guarantee); and those billed after a risk-free trial without clear, conspicuous consent.
If previous FTC disbursement efforts are any indication, the agency will present distribution instructions when administrative processes have finished. Consumers should keep their guard up against scams, and only trust messages that explicitly identify the FTC as the sender.
Why this case matters for online delivery
The settlement suggests that regulators will require delivery apps to advertise the total cost of an order, not just a portion of it. A $0 delivery banner in conjunction with a hidden service fee also risks overpromising on price, which can muddy the waters when consumers are comparison shopping across platforms. This is most pertinent in grocery delivery, where small fee variations have a significant impact on basket totals.
It also highlights the F.T.C.’s hardened attitude toward subscription programs. Previous suits against companies for tactics surrounding negative options have featured requirements of one-click cancellation, conspicuous disclosures near the call-to-action, and affirmative consent to recurring charges. Subscription revenue is vital for many platforms, but it has to be earned through clear terms and easy off-ramps.
What shoppers can do now to avoid surprise fees
- The company may charge service or platform fees in addition to the delivery fee.
- Be wary of language around “free delivery” and look for any separate service or platform fees before you check out.
- When starting a free trial, take note of the renewal date and price, save the email confirmation, and schedule a reminder to cancel if you’re planning to.
- If you believe you have been charged inappropriately, save useful receipts and screenshots. These records can be used for refunds through the company, or in a case like this, redress provided by the FTC.
Bottom line: Fee transparency and simple subscriptions cannot be optional anymore. With $60 million set to be returned and tougher marketing rules now in place, Instacart and its peers must clear a higher bar of honesty and clarity about the way they sell delivery operations and membership perks.
