A recent investigation has exposed that Instacart, one of the largest grocery delivery platforms in the United States, employs algorithmic pricing practices that charge different customers varying prices for the same items at identical store locations.
The discovery comes from a collaborative report released by Consumer Reports, Groundwork Collaborative, and More Perfect Union, revealing the scope and mechanics of these pricing experiments.
The investigation involved 437 shoppers across four major U.S. cities who were enlisted to purchase identical baskets of groceries from the same store locations through the Instacart app in September 2025.
The results were striking: approximately 75% of grocery items surveyed were offered at multiple price points to different customers. In some instances, the same product displayed as many as five different prices for different shoppers shopping at the same store at the same time.
Price discrepancies ranged significantly. On average, the difference between the lowest and highest prices shown for identical items was 13%, though the most extreme cases demonstrated variations exceeding 20%.
In one particularly notable example, a box of Signature SELECT Corn Flakes at a Safeway location in Washington, D.C., was offered at three different price points—$2.99, $3.49, and $3.69—representing a 23% difference between the highest and lowest prices.
At other locations, the pattern continued. In Seattle, a box of Wheat Thins displayed as many as five different prices ranging from $3.99 to $4.89 at the same Safeway store.
At a Target location in North Canton, Ohio, customers shopping for identical baskets of groceries encountered prices ranging from $84.43 to $90.47 for the same selection of items, while a jar of Skippy Creamy Peanut Butter sold for either $2.99 or $3.59 depending on the individual shopper.
The price variations extended beyond individual items to affect overall shopping baskets. When customers purchased identical collections of groceries from the same store at the same time, the total cost differences averaged around 7%.
This collective impact has led consumer advocates to estimate that shoppers using Instacart could face additional annual grocery costs of approximately $1,200 due to these pricing practices.
The Technology Behind the Pricing Experiments
The price variations on Instacart are facilitated by Eversight, a software company specializing in AI-driven pricing optimization that Instacart acquired in 2022.
This technology enables the platform to conduct what the company describes as "pricing tests" rather than true dynamic pricing, according to Instacart's public statements.
During an investor call in the previous year, Instacart CEO Fidji Simo explained that the AI technology "enables retailers to optimize their pricing dynamically, both online and in-store, helping them understand which product categories customers are more sensitive to price changes and adjust their pricing accordingly." This approach allows retailers to identify how price-sensitive consumers are to specific products—in other words, determining the maximum price consumers will accept before choosing not to purchase an item.
The investigation found evidence that different shoppers were presented with different "original" prices as well, creating the appearance of larger discounts for some customers compared to others, a practice known as "fictitious pricing." However, the researchers found no direct evidence that Instacart was basing price variations on individual customer characteristics such as income, ZIP code, or behavioral data.
Retailer Involvement and Scope
The research indicated that pricing experiments occurred primarily at Safeway and Target locations, with evidence of experimentation also discovered at Albertsons, Costco, Kroger, and Sprouts Farmers Market.
Instacart has stated that only 10 of its retail partners participate in these pricing experiments, specifically retailers that already apply markups to their products.
However, the scope of the testing appears broader than initially disclosed. All 437 participants in the study were exposed to algorithmic pricing variations, suggesting the practice was more widespread than Instacart's public characterization.
Target's response to the findings revealed some complexity regarding responsibility. A Target spokesperson stated that the company "is not affiliated with Instacart and is not responsible for prices on the Instacart platform," and noted that Target does not vary prices based on particular customers or groups.
Instacart subsequently indicated that it was "evaluating different approaches" at the time of the study and has since discontinued pricing tests on Target orders.
Stew Leonard's, a grocery chain partnering with Instacart for e-commerce fulfillment, took a contrasting stance.
According to the grocer's chief marketing officer, Tammy Berentson: "We would never price customer A differently from customer B. It's unjust, and we aim to be transparent and fair to our customers."
Instacart's Defense and Industry Context
When contacted by media outlets, Instacart maintained that its pricing practices do not constitute "dynamic pricing" in the traditional sense, and stressed that prices do not fluctuate in real-time based on supply and demand.
The company characterized the pricing adjustments as "limited, short-term, and randomized tests" designed to help retailers understand consumer preferences and maintain affordability for essential items.
Instacart further noted that retailer pricing policies are displayed on the platform, allowing customers to see when prices may differ from in-store offerings and to compare prices across retailers before checkout.
The company's explanation drew skepticism from consumer advocates and analysts.
Neil Saunders, managing director and analyst at GlobalData, noted that online shopping presents particular challenges for price transparency, stating: "You sit in front of your phone or your browser, you're shown the price, and you don't know what everyone else was shown."
Consumer Awareness and Broader Implications
A critical finding in the report indicated that Instacart shoppers were largely unaware they were participating in active pricing experiments. Consumer advocates characterize the practice as manipulative and unfair.
Justin Brookman, Consumer Reports' technology policy director, stated: "These tactics hurt families who are simply trying to purchase essential groceries. At a time when everyday Americans are struggling with high prices, it is particularly egregious to see corporations secretly conducting individual experiments to see how much a person is willing to pay."
The investigation comes during a period of heightened concern about grocery pricing. Prices for food items have increased by approximately 25% since the COVID-19 pandemic, according to reports.
In response to these inflation concerns, President Trump has mandated a comprehensive investigation into allegations of food price manipulation, and several Democratic lawmakers have accused major food corporations of price gouging.
Regulatory Considerations
While algorithmic pricing has become commonplace in certain industries such as airline travel and ride-sharing services, its application to grocery retail—an industry where consumers traditionally expect a fixed price for a given period—represents a significant shift in consumer expectations.
Saunders emphasized this distinction, noting: "In retail, especially grocery retail, people expect the price to be the price. They don't expect
Legal questions surrounding the practice remain unresolved. Under the Federal Trade Commission Act, unfair or deceptive acts or practices, including misleading cost or price claims, are prohibited.
However, current interpretations of these regulations do not necessarily require companies to disclose that customers are participating in pricing experiments or that they may be paying different prices than others for identical items.
The distinction between true dynamic pricing and price experimentation remains a point of contention.
While dynamic pricing adjusts prices in real-time based on immediate supply and demand, Instacart's approach appears designed to test price sensitivity and understand consumer behavior across categories—a subtly different methodology that nonetheless results in identical products bearing different price tags for different consumers without their knowledge or consent.
The findings underscore the expanding role of artificial intelligence in consumer commerce and raise fundamental questions about price transparency, consumer fairness, and the appropriate regulatory boundaries for algorithmic pricing in essential markets such as groceries.
