Hacker News Reader

Comment by dmor | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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?

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com