

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"Meanwhile, Trump wants to hike military spending to $1.5 trillion a year," said one observer.
Days after President Donald Trump made his latest dismissive remark about the cost of living and Americans' struggles to afford housing, new polling released Tuesday finds that nearly the entire voting public views the US as facing an affordability crisis and are increasingly pessimistic that the economy—and working people—will recover.
The Harris Poll, conducted on behalf of The Guardian newspaper, found that 57% of respondents believe the economy is still getting worse for Americans even after the US and Iran signed a peace deal last month to end the conflict started in February by the Trump administration and Israel—a war that sent oil prices soaring.
The average price of gas in the US is still $3.79 per gallon, despite the fact that Brent crude prices have fallen sharply.
Across party lines, about half of respondents said they are struggling to afford basic items like gas and groceries, and two-thirds of Americans, including nearly half of Republican voters, said they do not believe the Trump administration will improve the affordability crisis.
The poll was taken nearly a week after Trump, who ran on lowering costs for Americans, refused to sign affordable housing legislation, calling the bipartisan bill "a big yawn."
In May, as the administration was negotiating an end to the Iran War, Trump said that he did not “think about Americans’ financial situation,” even as the Middle East conflict he and Israel started hit family budgets hard.
A month earlier, he said the federal government "can’t take care of daycare" and healthcare programs for Americans, because it was focused on one thing and one thing only: "military protection."
According to the new survey, gas is at the top of the list of expenses that Americans are struggling to afford, with 52% saying they are having trouble keeping up with the cost. More than half of respondents also reported having trouble affording groceries, and 46% said they are struggling to make their loan payments and pay for utilities.
Trump ended the Biden administration's Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) program, terminating the income-based student loan repayment plan for millions of borrowers. A report by Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee in March also found that the average utility bill was up by $110, or 6.4%, over last year, following the Republican Party's elimination of tax credits for solar and wind power and as Trump pushed for the unregulated expansion of energy-sucking artificial intelligence data centers, despite warnings that they would drive up household utility bills.
The president's tariffs and his refusal to take on corporate consolidation in the meatpacking industry have also contributed to high grocery prices, recent analyses have found.
The Harris Poll found that 57% of Americans believe the economy is steadily getting worse, compared with 46% who said so in February. Just 16% said the economy is getting stronger, and only 27% of Republicans said the same. In February, 49% of Republican voters reported a positive outlook on the economy.
The survey also found that 54% of respondents said neither the Republican Party nor the Democratic Party has a solution to the growing affordability crisis.
However, the poll was taken on the heels of several electoral victories by progressive and democratic socialist candidates who have centered the needs of working families, demanded that billionaires pay their fair share in taxes, and called for Medicare for All and universal childcare—programs that would be similar to ones that are commonplace in other wealthy countries.
In New York City, Mayor Zohran Mamdani, a democratic socialist, has made strides toward a universal childcare program, a wealth tax, and a rent freeze for rent-stabilized housing units to address the economic inequality and cost-of-living crises.
On Monday, Trump claimed that "a social Democrat is a communist," in an apparent reference to democratic socialists like Mamdani and US House candidates Melat Kiros in Colorado's 1st District, Claire Valdez in New York's 7th District, and Darializa Avila Chevalier in New York's 13th District.
"If you look at the people that are running, it's crazy what they're doing," said Trump. "But we'll never let that happen to this country... There's no appetite for it."
But in The New York Times on Tuesday, Lindsay Owens of the progressive think tank Groundwork Collaborative suggested the recent elections prove there is, in fact, an "appetite" for candidates who recognize the affordability crisis, and prioritize solutions.
“The economic populist moment is here," she said.
"Food is going to become less affordable, and consumers should be prepared for it," said one expert.
US shoppers have been struggling with the price of groceries for years now, and prices are only set to climb higher in the coming months.
As reported by Bloomberg on Wednesday, a combination of President Donald Trump's tariffs, his illegal war with Iran, and a potential "super El Niño" weather pattern is projected to lower food supply while increasing food production costs, all of which will mean higher prices at US grocery stores.
According to Bloomberg, weather forecasters are now projecting that an unusually strong El Niño will form in August "that will persist into 2027 and push global average temperatures higher," potentially causing droughts in nations that grow staple crops such as rice, coffee, and cocoa.
And even without an El Niño, noted Bloomberg, farmers in the US have already endured the warmest-ever start to a planting season, which "prompted some domestic crops to begin blossoming weeks ahead of schedule instead of remaining dormant throughout the winter, leaving them exposed to subsequent frosts."
Ricky Volpe, agribusiness professor at California Polytechnic State University, told Bloomberg that 2026 would be a "challenging year" for agriculture, warning that "food is going to become less affordable, and consumers should be prepared for it."
Unusually warm weather isn't the only factor pushing up food prices. In a report published earlier this month, The New York Times found that Trump's tariffs on foreign steel have been pushing up prices of canned foods.
According to data from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the price of canned fruit and vegetables in March posted 5.7% increase from the year before, driven in large part by a tariff-induced rise in tin plate prices.
"Over 80% of the tin plate used in the United States last year was imported, according to Harbor Intelligence, a metals markets analysis firm," noted the Times. "Tin plate is produced in much lower volumes than the steel used to make cars and buildings, making it a less attractive business for large steel companies."
While Trump has tried to brush off the rise in grocery and fuel prices in recent weeks—going so far as to say "I don’t think about Americans’ financial situation"—his Republican Party is bracing for potential political consequences.
CNBC reported on Wednesday that the GOP is staring down an inflation "abyss" and fears that Democrats are well poised to at least retake the US House of Representatives.
Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), who is retiring at the end of this term, told CNBC that his fellow Republicans have been unwilling to serve as a check on what he described as Trump's self-destructive tariffs that had hit Americans' pocketbooks.
"I think tariffs are bad policy," said Bacon. "Milton Friedman, Adam Smith, they’re the bibles of conservatism, and we have violated those... We should not have rolled over on that here in Congress."
"It's not just that government can help, it's that government must help and our government will help."
New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani on Monday delivered a rebuttal to former Republican President Ronald Reagan's infamous quote about "the nine most terrifying words in the English language."
During an event announcing the location of a second city-run grocery store, Mamdani recalled Reagan claiming in 1986 that the scariest words in the English language were "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
"It's a good quote, but I disagree," Mamdani said. "I think nine more terrifying words are actually, 'I worked all day and can't feed my family.' We are going to use the power of government to lower prices and make it easier for New Yorkers to put food on the table."
Mayor Zohran Mamdani mocks Ronald Reagan’s infamous quote.
“I can think of nine words more terrifying than ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help…’”
“I worked all day and can’t feed my family.” pic.twitter.com/ZteyFvA5Lg
— Jacobin (@jacobin) May 18, 2026
The mayor added that "when government understands its purpose as serving the very working people that it has left behind time and again, it can make a difference in the most pressing struggles facing our city today."
"It's not just that government can help," Mamdani emphasized, "it's that government must help and our government will help."
In an announcement, Mamdani revealed that the city is planning to open a 20,000-square-foot grocery store in the Peninusla development in the Bronx by the end of next year. This marks the second announced location for a city-run grocery store, following an earlier announcement for a planned store in East Harlem that is set to open by 2029.
"Making sure every New Yorker can buy fresh, affordable groceries in their own neighborhood is a key part of our affordability agenda," Mamdani said. "We are proud to begin this work in the South Bronx and remain committed to opening a store in every borough before the end of our first term.”
A new law will ban retailers from using shoppers' personal data to hike grocery prices—but consumer advocates warn it contains loopholes that companies could exploit.
Maryland will become the first US state to outlaw "surveillance pricing" for groceries after Democratic Gov. Wes Moore signed a bill on Monday barring retailers and food delivery services from using customers' personal data to alter prices.
The practice has already become rampant in online commerce, with companies like Amazon, Uber, and Delta Air Lines accused of using everything from browsing history and location to demographic information to squeeze every possible cent from consumers.
The Protection from Predatory Pricing Act, which takes effect in Maryland beginning on October 1, targets the growing use of such tactics by grocery chains and delivery apps, which Moore has accused of using "new technologies to drive up the bill for working families."
These include electronic shelf labels, which advocates have warned could allow companies to instantly change grocery prices based on the time of day, weather, and other factors that influence consumer demand.
“Digital price tags are replacing paper ones. It’s happening because we are having cameras that are watching aisles, it’s happening because we have apps that are moving from search-based to predictive,” Moore said.
Moore has cited an investigation published in December by Consumer Reports and the Groundwork Collaborative, which found that Instacart was running a “pricing experiment” that charged some customers as much as 23% more for the same items than others based on shoppers' personal data.
Another investigation by Consumer Reports last May found that Kroger was collecting lengthy profiles of individual customers, including estimates of their household size, education level, income, and even perceived "loyalty" to the company, along with sometimes dozens of other pages of personal data.
"Surveillance pricing can drive up the price of food," said Grace Gedye, senior policy analyst at Consumer Reports. "Retailers have a lot of data about individual shoppers: how often we search for or hover over particular items, whether we live near competitor stores, inferences about our likes and dislikes, our dietary needs, our income, our family size, and more."
"Surveillance pricing," she said, "allows companies to take advantage of that information asymmetry and charge you as much as they think you’re individually willing to pay.”
To combat this, Maryland's new law requires that shelf prices remain steady for one full business day. It also bars retailers from using surveillance data, such as inferred income, ethnicity, family size, neighborhood, or purchasing history, to raise prices for individuals.
Companies that violate the law will receive civil penalties of up to $10,000 for first offenses and $25,000 for repeat offenses. They will also be given 45 days to correct violations before these fines apply.
Gedye said, "While it’s encouraging to see the Maryland Legislature take up this issue, this law has loopholes that will limit its real-world impact."
The law faced fierce opposition from industry groups, including the Maryland Retailers Alliance. The group ultimately withdrew its opposition, but only after several new provisions were introduced that Consumer Reports said "undercut" the law's effectiveness.
While the law bans the use of personal data to set higher prices, the group said there is no way to determine what constitutes a "baseline or standard price," meaning price fluctuations could easily be marketed as discounts. It also said companies could use loyalty and subscription programs—which are exempt from the law—to raise prices.
The group also warned that the law is too hard to enforce, since only the Maryland attorney general, not customers themselves, can bring suits, which it said is a "departure from Maryland’s primary consumer protection law."
Many other states—including California, New York, and Illinois—are considering similar bans, and legislation has been proposed at the federal level to outlaw surveillance and surge-pricing practices nationwide.
Gedye said, "We urge other state legislatures considering personalized pricing legislation to build in stronger consumer protections and avoid loopholes that weakened this bill.”
One expert warned of a "direct hit on consumer prices" if the Iran war persists.
President Donald Trump's unprovoked and unconstitutional war against Iran has already been raising gas prices for US drivers, and could soon raise the cost of food both in the US and all over the world.
NBC News reported on Tuesday that the price of diesel fuel has now soared above $5 per gallon for the first time since December 2022. If the price of diesel remains high, the report explained, it will raise the price of all goods delivered by trucks throughout the US, including food.
Paul Dietrich, chief investment strategist at Wedbush Securities, told NBC News that diesel prices will become a "direct hit on consumer prices" if they remain elevated, as "groceries get more expensive, delivery costs rise, and household budgets are tightened."
"Diesel is what moves the real economy," explained Dietrich. "It hauls the food, the packages, the building supplies, and the inventory sitting on store shelves."
The cost of diesel isn't the only factor that could spike food prices, as the Iran war has also put a strain on fertilizer that farmers need to grow crops.
Al Jazeera reported on Wednesday that there is growing concern that the rising price of fertilizer caused by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz could lead to a global food crisis.
As Al Jazeera explained, almost half of the global supply of urea, the most commonly used fertilizer, is shipped from Middle Eastern nations through the Strait of Hormuz.
With the strait closed by Iran in response to US and Israeli attacks, Al Jazeera wrote, "urea export prices from the Middle East have surged by about 40%, rising from just less than $500 to a little more than $700 per metric ton as of last Friday."
Al Jazeera also cited an estimate from data and analytics firm Kpler projecting that up to one-third of the global fertilizer trade could be disrupted if the strait remains closed for a prolonged period.
Carl Skau, deputy executive director and chief operating officer of the World Food Program, warned on Tuesday that the Iran war could push millions of people into extreme hunger should it persist.
"If this conflict continues, it will send shockwaves across the globe, and families who already cannot afford their next meal will be hit the hardest," said Skau. "Without an adequately funded humanitarian response, it could spell catastrophe for millions already on the edge."
WFP said the disruption in fertilizer markets offers "the most recent proof that conflict is the number one driver of hunger."
"Conflict forces people from their homes, destroys infrastructure, fuels inflation, and wipes out jobs," said the agency. "All of this makes it nearly impossible for people to find or afford enough food to survive. And children are always hit hardest: A child living in a country ravaged by conflict is more than twice as likely to be malnourished and out of school than their peers in peaceful settings."
Warnings about the war's impact on the price of food come as the US economy is showing signs of accelerating inflation.
As reported by CNBC on Wednesday, wholesale prices in February surged by 0.7%, more than double economists' consensus estimate of 0.3%.
On a year-over-year basis, wholesale prices rose by 3.4% in February—the highest increase in a year.
Spikes in wholesale prices, which reflect the amount that firms pay for inputs for their products, typically also lead to increased consumer prices, as companies pass on their cost increases to customers.
"The report suggests that pipeline inflation pressures remain persistent, particularly on the services side, complicating the Fed’s path as it weighs how long to keep interest rates elevated," CNBC noted.
"Thanks to Republican-backed tariffs and devastating SNAP cuts, working Americans are not only facing higher food prices but millions of people are also losing the assistance they rely on," said one critic.
President Donald Trump will soon be hosting a ritzy fundraiser even as many Americans say they're still struggling to afford weekly groceries.
As flagged by New York Times reporter Teddy Schleifer, Trump on Friday is scheduled to have a fundraising dinner at his Mar-a-Lago resort where attendees must pay $1 million each for the price of entry.
According to a Times report published last year on the planned fundraiser, the money raised from the dinner "will flow to a super PAC devoted to Mr. Trump, MAGA Inc., which has vacuumed up hundreds of millions of dollars since he was reelected last year."
The Times noted that it's unclear what Trump plans to do with the vast sums he's raising since he is constitutionally ineligible to serve another term, although that hasn't stopped him from saying he wants to run again in 2028.
The fundraiser is occurring as a new report from the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) is projecting that US consumers will get little relief from food prices in 2026.
According to the USDA Economic Research Service forecast for February 2026, "prices for all food are predicted to increase 3.1%" this year, "with a prediction interval of 0.7 to 5.7%."
The USDA also projects that seven categories of food are project to see their prices increase faster this year than their 20-year historical average rate of growth: "Beef and veal, other meats, fish and seafood, processed fruits and vegetables, sugar and sweets, cereal and bakery products, and nonalcoholic beverages."
Leor Tal, campaign director at Unrig Our Economy, said on Friday that Republican policies including Trump's tariffs and cuts made to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) are exacerbating the affordability crisis for US families.
"Families are already struggling to put food on the table and, instead of relief, they’re getting hit with even higher costs because congressional Republicans continue to prioritize billionaires over working Americans," said Tal. "Thanks to Republican-backed tariffs and devastating SNAP cuts, working Americans are not only facing higher food prices but millions of people are also losing the assistance they rely on to put food on the table."
An Associated Press poll released last year found that 53% of Americans believe the cost of groceries is a “major source of stress,” which is higher than the percentage of Americans who say the same thing about the cost of housing, healthcare, and childcare.
Anxiety about grocery prices is particularly strong among Americans earning $30,000 or less per year, as nearly two-thirds of them described paying for groceries as a “major source of stress.”
"What a slap in the face to struggling working families," Rep. Pramila Jayapal said of Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins' interview.
The Trump administration was again blasted for grocery prices this week after Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins discussed the new federal dietary guidelines during a NewsNation appearance.
"We've run over 1,000 simulations," Rollins said in a clip shared on social media by journalist Aaron Rupar on Wednesday. "It can cost around $3 a meal for a piece of chicken, a piece of broccoli, corn tortilla, and one other thing."
"So there is a way to do this that actually will save the average American consumer money," Rollins continued, pushing back against host Connell McShane's inquiry about whether the new guidelines expect people to spend more money on food.
The Guardian noted that "data from the consumer price index, as referenced by McShane, showed that food prices kept rising in December, increasing by 0.7%, the biggest month-to-month jump since October 2022. Prices for produce rose 0.5%, coffee increased by 1.9%, and beef went up 1% over the month and 16.4% compared with a year earlier."
Responding to the clip, Chasten Glezman Buttigieg, an author and teacher married to former Democratic Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, said, "Private jets and tax breaks for them and their rich friends, and one piece of broccoli *AND* a tortilla for you!"
Noting a similarly mocked statement from President Donald Trump before the holidays, Civic Media political editor Dan Shafer said: "You will eat one piece of broccoli and your child will have one Christmas toy. This is the Golden Age."
Other critics, including Democratic lawmakers, used artificial intelligence programs to generate images of what they called Rollins' proposed "depression meal."
"Due to Trump's tariffs, last month was the largest spike in grocery prices in three years. So now this is what the Trump administration suggests you can afford for a meal," wrote US Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), sharing the image below.

Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.) said: "Trump gets a gold-plated new ballroom. You get a piece of chicken, broccoli, and one corn tortilla."

"MAHA!" declared Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee, invoking a phrase seized on by Trump after he won the support of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., "Make America Healthy Again."

Sharing an edited video clip of Rollins' interview, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said, "What a slap in the face to struggling working families."
Marlow Stern, who teaches at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, suggested that "you should eat prison meals" was "prob not the best message" from the Trump administration to the public.
The video went viral as the congressional Joint Economic Committee's (JEC) Democratic staff on Thursday released a report showing that "a typical American family paid $310 more for groceries" during the first year of Trump's second term compared to 2024.
Some of the biggest estimated jumps in annual cost documented in the report were for coffee (+$76.06), ground beef (+$70.99), eggs (+$51.66), candy (+$47.21), potato chips and salty snacks (+$22.59), orange juice (+$14.18), whole chickens (+$12.51), and chicken breasts (+$11.55).
"Despite President Trump's promises that he would lower grocery costs, families across America are paying higher prices at the cash register," said Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH), the JEC ranking member. "This report provides proof of what the American people are experiencing every day: Costs are too high, and Trump's policies are only making them worse."
The grocery delivery app is conducting large-scale, hidden pricing experiments on unsuspecting shoppers to determine just how much money they can extract from customers on the groceries they buy to feed their families.
Somewhere, a mom taps through her grocery app while waiting in the school pickup line, purchasing a box of Wheat Thins for $5.99. Across town, someone else scrolls through the same grocery app and adds the exact same box of Wheat Thins to their cart. For them, the crackers ring up at $6.99. It is the same item, from the same store, at the same time, but one unlucky shopper is stuck paying a higher price. Neither shopper has any idea this pricing game is even being played.
This is not a hypothetical scenario. Increasingly, it’s happening all over the country. Right now, grocery delivery app Instacart is conducting large-scale, hidden pricing experiments on unsuspecting shoppers to determine just how much money they can extract from customers on the groceries they buy to feed their families.
How do we know? Our team at Groundwork Collaborative had a feeling Instacart might be experimenting on shoppers, so we decided to run an experiment on them. Alongside our partners at Consumer Reports and More Perfect Union, we recruited over 400 volunteer secret shoppers to shop for the same basket of 20 items at the same grocery store at the same time. We ran the experiment in four different stores across the country.
The results were damning: At every store we tested, shoppers were charged different prices for an identical basket of groceries. Overall, Instacart basket totals varied by about 7%, with some items posting differences as high as 23%. For example: the exact same basket of groceries from a Safeway store in Seattle, Washington ran some shoppers $114.34, while other shoppers were charged $123.93. At a Target in North Canton, Ohio, prices varied by as much as $6, as some shoppers rang up a total of $84.43, while others were charged $87.91 or as much as $90.47.
Unfortunately, Instacart’s predatory pricing is just one small piece of a much larger–and rapidly growing–economy of extraction.
Based on the company’s own estimates, this “Instacart tax” could drain as much as $1,200 from American households’ pocketbooks each year.
Meanwhile, Instacart is gloating about their ability to use unaware shoppers as guinea pigs to pad their bottom line profits. On their website, the company notes that, “End shoppers are not aware that they’re in an experiment. For any given shopper in any given store, prices only change on a few of the products they shop and only by a small margin; it’s negligible.” But we’re facing the greatest food affordability crisis in a generation. As grocery prices continue to rise and reliance on Buy Now, Pay Later is accelerating, it is painfully evident that an additional $1,200 a year is anything but negligible for many American families.
Unfortunately, Instacart’s predatory pricing is just one small piece of a much larger–and rapidly growing–economy of extraction. Enabled by corporate consolidation and artificial intelligence technologies, companies across industries now deploy a dizzying array of tactics designed to extract maximum profit from each individual. They tack on hidden fees; collude with their competitors on price increases; and individualize prices for consumers based on granular, personal data.
These predatory pricing strategies are not about managing scarcity or efficient markets. They’re corporations experimenting with your willingness to pay to see exactly how much they can squeeze out of you.
Since its release last week, our report has struck a national chord—earning front-page coverage in the New York Times, primetime coverage on broadcast news, and featuring in a video that has already amassed nearly 2 million views. Instacart’s own stock even dropped 6% the day after our report was published, which the Wall Street Journal attributed in part to our investigation.
This reaction is unsurprising: Americans dislike being surveilled, they resent being gouged, and they certainly don’t like being lab rats for profit-driven experimentation. Fair and honest markets are the bedrock of a healthy economy—and companies like Instacart jeopardize that trust by making prices opaque and unpredictable.
Our message to Instacart—and any corporation that would try to replicate their pricing experiment—is simple. Close the labs. American shoppers are not guinea pigs.
"Instacart is far from the only corporation using AI technologies to determine exactly how much profit they can extract from their customers by overcharging them," said the executive director of Groundwork Action.
The watchdog group that exposed Instacart's artificial intelligence pricing scheme is rejoicing after the company announced on Monday that it was ending the controversial program.
Earlier this month, Consumer Reports joined the Groundwork Collaborative and More Perfect Union to report that the grocery shopping app—which calls itself the "largest online grocery marketplace in North America"—was using the AI pricing software Eversight to charge up to 23% more for some customers than others for the same items, subjecting users to a "pricing experiment" that could cost them as much as $1,200 extra each year.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) took notice of the report, saying it was "disturbed" by the findings, and launched an investigation on Thursday, which caused the company's stock price to plummet by about 7%. It also attracted attention from members of Congress, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who demanded government action on what he called "shakedown pricing."
Instacart agreed that same day to pay the FTC $60 million in a settlement for what the commission said was "a variety of deceptive tactics that misled consumers and caused them to pay more in fees." These included falsely advertising "free delivery" to consumers on their first order, implying that customers would receive a full refund if they were dissatisfied with their delivery, and failing to disclose membership charges.
The settlement does not mention Instacart's use of AI pricing experiments, but on Monday, the company said it would hit the brakes on that as well, following customer backlash.
"Effective immediately, Instacart is ending all item price tests on our platform. Retailers will no longer be able to use Eversight technology to run item price tests on Instacart," the company said in a statement. "Now, if two families are shopping for the same items, at the same time, from the same store location on Instacart, they see the same prices—period."
While it acknowledged that the pricing scheme "missed the mark for some customers," the company maintains that it was not using "dynamic pricing or surveillance pricing" and that it was not changing prices "based on supply or demand, personal data, demographics, or individual shopping behavior."
Alex Jacquez, Groundwork's chief of policy and advocacy, celebrated on social media that "Instacart has ended all item pricing experiments on its platform," calling it a "big win for consumers."
Groundwork Action's executive director, Lindsay Owens, likewise took pride in the fact that "once we pulled back the curtain on Instacart’s hidden pricing experiments, the company had no choice but to close the lab," but also said "it shouldn’t take investigative research, public outcry, and the threat of FTC action to convince companies not to treat consumers like lab rats."
"Instacart is far from the only corporation using AI technologies to determine exactly how much profit they can extract from their customers by overcharging them," she added.
Though the investigation did not find evidence that Instacart was using these methods, other companies—including Amazon, Delta Air Lines, and Home Depot—have been accused of fluctuating prices for consumers based on ZIP code or income level.
Owens said, "It’s time for regulators to put a stop to corporate pricing schemes and take action to restore fair, predictable, and transparent pricing.”
Groundwork Collaborative revealed this month that artificial intelligence-enabled pricing experiments used by the shopping app have charged users up to 23% more than others for the same products.
The executive director of Groundwork Collaborative, the advocacy group behind a "bombshell report" that exposed Instacart's artificial intelligence-powered pricing schemes, welcomed the news that the federal government US opening an investigation into the business practice, and urged the Federal Trade Commission to follow the probe with concrete consumer protection actions.
The FTC told Gizmodo that "like so many Americans, we are disturbed by what we have read in the press about Instacart’s alleged pricing practices.”
Groundwork joined Consumer Reports and More Perfect Union in examining Instacart's practice, using the AI pricing software Eversight, of quoting different prices to different shoppers using the company's app, which allows people to order groceries and send a shopper to pick them up.
Some customers at a Safeway in Seattle were charged a price that was 23% higher than other shoppers for Skippy peanut butter, Oscar Mayer turkey, and Wheat Thins crackers. In Washington, DC, customers using the Insacart app saw eggs priced at $3.99, while others who logged on at the exact same time were charged $4.79 for the same brand at the same store.
Instacart has the ability to change prices based on data such as ZIP code or income, though the groups did not find it is currently using that information in its pricing experiments.
Groundwork noted that the scheme is taking place as American families are already struggling to afford groceries, electricity, healthcare, and other essentials.
“At a time when families are being squeezed by the highest grocery costs in a generation, Instacart chose to run AI experiments that are quietly driving prices higher," said Lindsay Owens, executive director of Groundwork. "While the FTC’s investigation is welcome news, it must be followed with meaningful action that ends these exploitative pricing schemes and protects consumers. Instacart must face consequences for their algorithmic price gouging, not just a slap on the wrist.”
In its report, the group called on the FTC to take action under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, which prohibits “unfair methods of competition," or to bring enforcement cases or initiate rulemaking to officially classify AI-enabled pricing strategies as "unfair and deceptive" strategies.
The progressive think tank Roosevelt Institute applauded Groundwork and its partners for the "major investigation" that pushed the FTC to act.
Instacart's shares dropped by about 7% following the news of the FTC probe.
On Thursday, the agency announced that Instacart would pay $60 million in refunds to settle separate allegations that it falsely advertised "free delivery" while charging a service fee, falsely advertised a "100% satisfaction guarantee" that suggested it would offer full refunds, and failed to disclose terms regarding Instacart+ membership.