3 ms·

No, Instacart made an agreement which they need to honor more faithfully. If the 71 customers had decided to change the terms of a business agreement similarly,

No, Instacart made an agreement which they need to honor more faithfully. If the 71 customers had decided to change the terms of a business agreement similarly, their accounts would probably be closed and referred for debt-collection. The fact that Instacart is a tiny startup has no bearing on whether they should honor their agreements.

robryan 14y ago
What is the agreement that they are honoring in this case? They didn't have a plan for further $35 subscription, people were either moving to the more expensive subscription or canceling. Allowing the customers who weren't aware to retrospectively cancel and also keep any value of the service they already used seems fair.
- fnordfnordfnord 14y ago
  > First, we’re going to refund all delivery fees paid by the people affected by this bug. I think I misunderstood that the first time, or just plain missed it. I'd be okay with it as long as what I quoted above means what I think it means.
tptacek 14y ago
That is not a reasonable demand.
- fnordfnordfnord 14y ago
  You can repeat that until you are blue in the face if you like. That won't make it a true. It is ludicrous to modify a business agreement without actually giving notice, and expect to keep the proceeds of that mistake.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    So, the pricing model as suicide pact principle.
    - mikeash 14y ago
      If they no longer want to offer a free tier, they're free to end it. I don't think anyone is proposing otherwise. They are not, however, free to unilaterally move people to a tier that costs money and start charging them without an explicit agreement.
      - tptacek 14y ago
        They've offered refunds on delivery charges and a full refund on the Instacart Express subscription fee for people who don't want to come along with them to their new pricing model.
        mikeash 14y ago
        Doesn't really matter. The fact that they charged without permission is seriously wrong, and I don't see them owning up to that. They seem to think their mistake was in not notifying people well enough.

robryan 14y ago

What is the agreement that they are honoring in this case? They didn't have a plan for further $35 subscription, people were either moving to the more expensive subscription or canceling. Allowing the customers who weren't aware to retrospectively cancel and also keep any value of the service they already used seems fair.

fnordfnordfnord 14y ago
> First, we’re going to refund all delivery fees paid by the people affected by this bug. I think I misunderstood that the first time, or just plain missed it. I'd be okay with it as long as what I quoted above means what I think it means.

tptacek 14y ago

That is not a reasonable demand.

fnordfnordfnord 14y ago
You can repeat that until you are blue in the face if you like. That won't make it a true. It is ludicrous to modify a business agreement without actually giving notice, and expect to keep the proceeds of that mistake.
- tptacek 14y ago
  So, the pricing model as suicide pact principle.
  - mikeash 14y ago
    If they no longer want to offer a free tier, they're free to end it. I don't think anyone is proposing otherwise. They are not, however, free to unilaterally move people to a tier that costs money and start charging them without an explicit agreement.
    - tptacek 14y ago
      They've offered refunds on delivery charges and a full refund on the Instacart Express subscription fee for people who don't want to come along with them to their new pricing model.
      - mikeash 14y ago
        Doesn't really matter. The fact that they charged without permission is seriously wrong, and I don't see them owning up to that. They seem to think their mistake was in not notifying people well enough.