Instacart claims the price differences stem from 'price tests,' not dynamic, real-time price changes
December 10, 2025
-
Independent experiment shows Instacart displayed multiple prices for the same grocery items to different shoppers at the same time.
-
Nearly three-quarters of tested items appeared at two to five different price points, with basket totals varying by an average of 7%.
-
Researchers say opaque pricing practices could cost a typical family as much as $1,200 a year and undermine trust in the grocery market.
A new multi-city experiment suggests that Instacart may be showing different prices to different customers for the exact same grocery items, raising concerns about transparency in one of the fastest-growing sectors of the food economy.
The study, conducted by Groundwork Collaborative, Consumer Reports, and More Perfect Union, enlisted 437 shoppers to perform synchronized live tests on Instacart in four U.S. cities.
Each participant added identical items from the same stores to their Instacart carts at the same time, stopping just short of placing an order. Researchers documented the prices each shopper saw and analyzed how widely they varied.
Their findings point to pervasive price variability that researchers argue could amount to real-time pricing experiments by the platformones consumers never consented to and may not even detect.
Different shoppers, different prices
In one hypothetical scenario offered by researchers, two customers walk into the same grocery store and pick up the same box of Cheeriosonly to be charged different amounts at checkout. That scenario, they say, is no longer hypothetical in the world of online grocery shopping.
According to the study:
-
74% of all tested grocery items appeared on Instacart at multiple prices during the experiment.
-
Some products showed as many as five different prices at the same store at the same time.
-
A dozen Lucerne eggs, for example, ranged from $3.99 to $4.79 on Instacart at a Safeway in Washington, D.C.
-
At a Safeway in Seattle, a 10-count box of Clif Chocolate Chip Energy bars showed prices of $19.43, $19.99, and $21.99.
On average, items with price variation showed a 13% difference between the lowest and highest prices. In extreme cases, disparities reached 23%, such as a box of Signature SELECT Corn Flakes in D.C. that appeared at $2.99, $3.49, and $3.69 depending on the shopper.
Basket totals varied too by as much as $39
Pricing discrepancies werent limited to individual items. Entire grocery baskets fluctuated from shopper to shoppereven when the baskets were identical.
At a Safeway in Seattle, the exact same grocery list generated totals of $114.34, $119.85, and $123.93. At a Target in North Canton, Ohio, shoppers saw prices ranging from $84.43 to $90.47 for the same basket.
On average, basket totals differed by about 7%.
Based on Instacarts estimate of what a typical household of four spends on groceries annually, that 7% swing could translate into roughly $1,200 a year in additional costs, depending on which prices a family happens to be shown.
Company response
Instacart claims the price differences stem from price tests not dynamic, real-time price changes based on who you are.The company says these tests apply only for a small group of its retail partners roughly 10 partners, according to its statement.
Instacart argues that it does not base prices on personal or behavioral characteristics of shoppers.
However, the organizations behind the study warn that as companies like Instacart adopt or refine technologies that allow for dynamic or personalized pricing, the result is an erosion of two long-standing assumptions in consumer markets:
When shoppers cant trust prices to be consistent or comparable, the researchers argue, they lose the ability to budget effectively or comparison-shopcore functions of a fair marketplace.
The report concludes that nontransparent pricing experiments arent just blowing a hole in families wallets. They also jeopardize the trust that underpins a functioning market, potentially allowing retailers or platforms to extract higher margins from unwitting consumers.