According to Fast Company, Instacart announced it is immediately ending all item price tests powered by Eversight technology on its platform. This follows a months-long investigation by Consumer Reports and the Groundwork Collaborative, which found algorithmic pricing could create price differences of up to 23% for the same grocery item. The program, which was only available to a small number of retail partners, allowed for dynamic testing that resulted in different customers seeing different prices at the same store. Instacart admitted in a blog post on Monday that the practice “missed the mark for some customers” and raised concerns as families try to stretch their budgets. This marks the third time Instacart has responded to the widely-shared Consumer Reports study.
The Trust Tax
Here’s the thing: this is a pure trust play. Instacart’s entire business model sits in a precarious spot. It’s a middleman between you, the grocery store, and a personal shopper. And nothing erodes that fragile trust faster than the suspicion that you’re being charged a “convenience tax” that’s not just a delivery fee, but a secret, personalized markup. The Consumer Reports findings were a PR nightmare they simply couldn’t ignore. So they cut it. Now, if the model is “the price is the price,” it removes a huge point of friction and anxiety for the customer. It’s a defensive move, but a smart one.
Why This Was Inevitable
But let’s be real, this was probably coming anyway. Dynamic, AI-driven pricing works in some sectors—airlines, ride-sharing, hotels. People kinda get it. Groceries? That’s different. It feels fundamentally unfair. We’re talking about staples, necessities. Playing with the price of milk or bread based on what an algorithm thinks someone will pay isn’t just commerce; it feels predatory. Instacart was basically testing how much “friction” its users would tolerate. They found out. The backlash was the data point they couldn’t ignore. I think they realized the potential revenue from these micro-optimized tests wasn’t worth the brand damage and the risk of a regulatory spotlight.
The Bigger Picture
This is part of a much larger conversation about algorithmic pricing and fairness. When software sets prices in opaque ways, who benefits? The Instacart blog post talks about transparency, but the genie is out of the bottle. Consumers are now hyper-aware that the price they see might be *for them*. The immediate beneficiary here is, of course, the shopper who just wants a fair, predictable cost. But in the long run, this might also benefit Instacart by simplifying their retailer tools and avoiding a nasty regulatory fight. They’re choosing stability over algorithmic edge. In today’s climate, that’s probably the right call.
