Instacart Agrees to $60 Million FTC Settlement Over Delivery Fees, Refunds, and Subscription Practices

Instacart has agreed to pay $60 million and change how it presents delivery fees, refunds, and subscription enrollments under a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission, according to federal court records. The agreement would impose long-term rules on how the company presents pricing information and subscription terms.

The settlement resolves a consumer protection case brought by the FTC against Maplebear Inc., which operates the grocery delivery platform. Federal regulators alleged that Instacart used marketing practices that misled consumers about delivery costs, refund availability, and paid subscription terms.

Under the agreement, Instacart would be barred from misrepresenting the total cost consumers pay for delivery orders. The order requires the company to disclose all fees that affect the total price before consumers complete a transaction or provide payment information, a requirement intended to ensure users understand the full cost of an order before deciding whether to proceed.

The settlement also addresses how Instacart advertised refunds. Regulators alleged that the company promoted a “100 percent satisfaction guarantee” while often limiting remedies to credits or partial refunds rather than returning money to the original payment method. The agreement prohibits advertising refunds in ways that could mislead consumers and requires clearer disclosure of any limits or conditions tied to refunds.

In addition, the order governs changes to Instacart’s customer reporting tools. According to the FTC, consumers seeking help with missing or delayed orders were frequently directed toward credits, while refund options were less visible within the platform. The settlement requires that refund information be presented clearly so consumers can understand the options available to them.

A significant portion of the settlement focuses on Instacart+, the company’s paid subscription service. The FTC alleged that Instacart enrolled consumers into annual memberships through free trial offers that automatically converted into paid plans unless canceled. Under the stipulated order, Instacart must disclose renewal terms, recurring charges, and refund limitations before enrolling users and must obtain express affirmative consent, meaning a clear agreement from the consumer, before billing begins.

The agency alleged that some consumers did not realize they had been charged for a subscription until charges appeared on their payment statements. Court filings reference consumer complaints and internal research indicating that some users were unaware that a trial would renew into a $99 annual membership and that canceling the service did not necessarily result in a refund once billing began.

The legal claims resolved by the settlement were brought under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts in commerce, including misleading advertising or leaving out information that would matter to a reasonable consumer. The FTC also relied on the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act, known as ROSCA, which regulates online sales using negative option features where a consumer can be charged automatically unless they cancel.

Negative option features are common in everyday transactions, including free trials, streaming services, and membership programs, where charges begin automatically unless a consumer takes steps to cancel. Federal law requires companies using these models to clearly explain how billing works and to obtain clear consent before charging consumers. Instacart did not admit wrongdoing and agreed to follow the settlement terms.

The stipulated order sets enforceable standards for Instacart’s delivery pricing disclosures, refund representations, and subscription enrollment practices, and subjects the company to compliance and monitoring requirements for a ten-year period.