Hacker News Reader

Comment by elemeno | Hacker News Reader

You generally can't just change the policy - you entered into a contract with the people who paid $99 for a year of free delivery. You can change the policy for new buyers, but the agreement with the older ones still exists.

View on HN

Instacart Express was a free trial until very recently - no one was charged for the service. When Instacart starting charging the $99 fee, they also sent out the email (which apparently didn't reach anyone?) and changed the policy such that it made sense for the company while also providing that people could opt-out on the new conditions. I agree 100% they shouldn't be changing the policy if people had paid for it (e.g., breaking the contract), but in this case everyone was getting a free service.

Then they shouldn't have auto-charged the $99 under the new terms - they should have had the users opt-in to the new service since it was different to what they initially signed up for.

Actually, no one paid for Instacart Express until March, 2013. And when we made changes to the plan, we intended to notify everyone first and give them time to decide whether to continue or cancel.

I never got the email. What I did notice is when I went to my account page I saw that it indicated that my free trial was going to end and gave me a chance to pay. I had previously heard from customer service that I had never been charged (but was not told that nobody had been charged).

When I saw this, I went ahead and paid (not knowing, of course, that the terms had changed). And my Instacart Express membership now says Aug 19, 2012 - Aug 19, 2013. But in this article, the OP shows a screenshot indicating his service is March 20, 2013 - March 20, 2014. Why is there a discrepancy here? By explicitly opting to pay from my account page, did I screw myself out of 7 months worth of Express service that the OP is getting?

I'm pretty sure that, like most sites, they have something in their TOS that says they reserve the right to change the terms of offering their service at their sole discretion. When you sign up for the service you are agreeing to the TOS even if you pay a fee, and this is quite standard.

It sounds like they tried to do the right thing and notify customers of the change, and people could have chosen to unsubscribe if they didn't like the new terms, but there was some kind of bug and they are fixing it.

That sounds like hiding behind fine print, which is certainly legal, but I'm not sure how that makes it the "right thing". Why isn't the "right thing" honoring the original arrangement with existing customers, at least until it expires?

When you bring up contracts, the small print matters. It's still not clear what the original terms were, and since I wasn't an Instacart Express users I didn't see the company's messaging, but I'd assume they're not out to screw people to the tune of $8. Unlike most people on this thread, I assume the best of startups until they do something truly evil.

I never said they were trying to screw people, I just find it strange that it's apparently okay to offer a product for several months, take people's money for it, and then change the terms underneath them.

Sure I understand that Instacart isn't a charity, and they must have realized that this was clearly not a profitable business model. I guess what I don't understand is why they can't own the mistake and eat the loss. They didn't advertise "free deliveries for $99 as long as our math and assumptions hold", they advertised "free deliveries for $99 for a year".

And people paid them money for it.

Why is it unreasonable for Instacart Express customers to expect what they paid for? Why is it acceptable for Instacart to effectively bait and switch their early adopters, regardless of their motivations?

This would be equivalent to signing a contract and, on the reverse side of the contract, it stating that the drafter of the contract is not bound by the terms. Can't do it. Both parties are bound or neither is.

This is only partly related but just a heads up some courts have found TOS agreements illusionary in the past for including clauses that mention they can be altered at any time without the user's consent. Some courts may throw out the clause, a section of the TOS, or even the entire TOS as a result.

Just an example of precedence (you'll need to copy and paste HN drops the trailing period on the URL): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harris_v._Blockbuster_Inc.

I'm not a lawyer just good to keep in mind that the validity of such clauses is in question in courtrooms in the country.

I looked into this before and from what I understand, you cannot simply include "we change whenever we want" into your TOS. It is fine for small adjustments to the agreement, but when you release something that significantly impacts you users, you actually must re-send a notification of change and get your users to agree to the new terms. At least, these actions are most likely to stand in court. Just my research though, perhaps a lawyer could comment?

This is quite common for Dish Network. They keep on increasing the price of some additional channel (in my case B4U music) that I have subscribed even if you have 2 year commitment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com