I take issue with the term "abuse." The implication is that people are unfairly taking advantage of the service, and that the companies are justified in alterin

I take issue with the term "abuse." The implication is that people are unfairly taking advantage of the service, and that the companies are justified in altering obfuscating their pricing structures in a way that is at best disingenuous and at worst illegal. If companies agree to provide a free service to their customers, said customers can only be expected to maximize their value from the service. The companies have an obligation to offer their services at the marketed or contractually-guaranteed price, and aren't justified in misleading customers. No "abuse" happened. These companies made poor choices and consumers acted in their best interest (as they are inclined to do). That doesn't justify that choices that Instacart made.