Instacart has agreed to refund $60 million to settle claims by the Federal Trade Commission that it misled customers with deceptive advertising and automatically enrolled users in paid subscriptions. The grocery delivery service, which partners with over 1,800 retailers and serves millions of customers across North America, was accused of multiple tactics that increased costs for shoppers without their knowledge.
The FTC complaint alleges that Instacart advertised “free delivery” while charging mandatory service fees that could add up to 15 percent of the order. It also claimed that the company offered a “100% satisfaction guarantee” but often provided only small credits toward future purchases instead of full refunds. Customers attempting to access refunds through self-service menus were often led to believe that credits were their only option.
The complaint also raised concerns about Instacart+ free trials. Many users were automatically charged for memberships at the end of the trial period without clear disclosure. Hundreds of thousands of consumers were affected, paying for services they did not intend to subscribe to.
Christopher Mufarrige, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, stated that the agency is focused on ensuring online delivery services compete transparently on pricing and subscription terms. Under the settlement, Instacart must end all deceptive practices and clearly disclose subscription details. Consumers who were charged without consent will receive refunds.
Instacart remains under investigation for pricing practices after consumer advocacy groups noted that the platform charged different prices for identical products depending on the user. The company explained this as randomized A/B testing to gauge price sensitivity and denied using personal information to determine prices. Retail partners retain full control over individual product prices.
In a statement, Instacart said, “We provide straightforward marketing, transparent pricing and fees, clear terms, easy cancellation, and generous refund policies all in full compliance with the law. We deny any allegations of wrongdoing and remain focused on delivering value for our customers, shoppers, and retail partners.”
For everyday consumers, this case highlights how technology platforms can obscure costs and manipulate subscriptions, even for widely used services. Awareness of these practices can help people make more informed choices when navigating online marketplaces and subscription programs.
For tips, questions, or inquiries, email us at hello@laterstack.com.
Related Laterstack Tech Stories
Google Sues Web Scraper for Stealing Search Results at ‘Astonishing Scale’
The RAM Shortage Is Not Going Away and Your Next Phone or PC Will Cost More
Google and Apple Warn Visa Holding Employees to Avoid International Travel
New York Governor Kathy Hochul Signs RAISE Act to Regulate AI Safety
New York Governor Kathy Hochul has signed the RAISE Act into law, making New York the second state in the country to pass sweeping artificial intelligence safety legislation.
State lawmakers originally passed the bill in June. After heavy lobbying from the tech industry, Hochul proposed revisions to scale back the legislation. According to the New York Times, Hochul ultimately agreed to sign the original version of the bill while lawmakers committed to revisiting her proposed changes next year.
The RAISE Act requires large AI developers operating in New York to publicly disclose details about their safety protocols and report serious AI related incidents to the state within 72 hours. The law also establishes a new office within the New York Department of Financial Services dedicated to monitoring AI development and enforcement.
Companies that fail to submit required safety reports or provide false information can face fines of up to $1 million. Repeat violations can result in penalties of up to $3 million.
Hochul referenced California’s recent AI safety law when announcing the signing, positioning New York and California as the leading states shaping AI oversight in the absence of federal action.
“This law builds on California’s recently adopted framework, creating a unified benchmark among the country’s leading tech states as the federal government lags behind,” Hochul said. “New Yorkers deserve common sense protections as AI becomes more powerful and more widespread.”
State Senator Andrew Gounardes, one of the bill’s sponsors, took a more confrontational tone. In a public post, he said major tech companies attempted to derail the legislation through lobbying efforts but failed. He described the RAISE Act as the strongest AI safety law passed in the United States so far.
Support for the law has not been uniform across the tech industry. Both OpenAI and Anthropic publicly backed the bill while also urging Congress to move faster on federal AI regulation. Anthropic’s head of external affairs, Sarah Heck, told the New York Times that the passage of AI transparency laws in two of the country’s largest states should push lawmakers in Washington to act.
At the same time, opposition has emerged from powerful venture interests. A super PAC backed by Andreessen Horowitz and OpenAI President Greg Brockman is reportedly preparing to challenge Assemblyman Alex Bores, who co sponsored the bill. Bores responded publicly by saying he appreciated how direct the opposition had been.
The law also arrives amid escalating tension between states and the federal government. President Donald Trump recently signed an executive order directing federal agencies to challenge state level AI regulations. The order, backed by Trump’s AI policy lead David Sacks, is expected to face legal challenges and has intensified debate over whether states should be allowed to regulate AI independently.
What This Means for Everyday People
For the public, the RAISE Act signals a shift toward transparency and accountability as AI systems become more embedded in daily life. From automated decision making to financial services and healthcare tools, the law aims to ensure companies disclose risks, respond quickly to failures, and face consequences when systems cause harm. While legal battles are likely, the legislation gives consumers clearer guardrails at a moment when AI is moving faster than national regulation.
For inquiries or tips
hello@laterstack.com
Related Laterstack Stories
Sequoia Partner’s False Brown Shooting Claims Put New Leadership to the Test
TikTok Hands Control of Its US Business to American Investors After Years of Pressure
Is Your Vibrator Spying on You? Understanding App-Connected Sex Toy Data
For decades, gambling was something that happened in specific places under visible rules. Casinos required identification. States set limits. Regulators watched closely. Access involved friction, distance, and oversight.
Crypto casinos removed all three.
What began as small offshore websites has grown into a multibillion dollar gambling economy operating in plain sight across social media platforms. These sites allow users to gamble using cryptocurrency on slot machines, sports, and casino games, often without meaningful identity checks and outside the reach of national regulators.
For many young users, especially those who grew up online, these platforms did not feel illegal or hidden. They felt normal.
The shift did not happen overnight. Crypto casinos took advantage of two things regulators were slow to respond to. The first was cryptocurrency itself, which allowed users to bypass banks, payment processors, and traditional anti money laundering controls. The second was social media, which turned gambling into content rather than an activity that required physical presence.
As platforms like Twitch and YouTube grew, so did livestreaming. Viewers watched influencers gamble in real time, reacting emotionally to wins and losses while encouraging audiences to join in. When Twitch banned crypto casino promotion in 2022, the industry did not retreat. Instead, it adapted. Stake and its partners launched Kick, a streaming platform with fewer restrictions, built specifically to host gambling content.
This ecosystem runs on affiliates. Anyone can sign up to promote a casino and earn a percentage of the wagers placed by people they recruit. Streamers are given referral codes, free gambling credit, or direct payments in exchange for constant exposure. Some earn thousands per day. Others lose money trying to build an audience. The platform profits either way.
At the top are celebrity endorsements and multimillion dollar sponsorships. Below them are large streamers who earn six figures annually from a mix of guaranteed payments and affiliate commissions. At the bottom are thousands of smaller creators gambling for hours with their own money, hoping attention will turn into income.
The structure encourages excess. Louder reactions drive views. Bigger bets attract followers. Risk becomes performance. Losses are part of the show.
For young viewers, many of whom are under 18, the message is not delivered directly. It is absorbed. Gambling is framed as a path to money, status, and freedom from traditional work. The risks are invisible. The losses happen quietly.
Identity verification on many crypto casinos remains weak or easily bypassed. Teenagers use false information, virtual private networks, or accounts purchased from third parties. Some are coached in real time by streamers or online communities on how to avoid detection.
Self exclusion systems, a cornerstone of regulated gambling, are often ignored. Players who attempt to ban themselves find new sites or receive messages encouraging them to return. The system is built for retention, not restraint.
Regulators have struggled to respond. Gambling laws are fragmented by state and country. Crypto casinos operate offshore, move quickly, and shift branding when pressure mounts. Lawsuits and cease and desist letters move slowly. Platforms move faster.
The result is a market that resembles an earlier internet era. Fast growth, loose rules, and profits driven by scale rather than sustainability. The cost is deferred. Addiction, financial loss, and mental health damage surface later, often after the audience has moved on.
Crypto casinos are not just exploiting loopholes. They are exploiting attention. They understand how young people consume media, how communities form online, and how influence spreads faster than regulation.
This is not a story about technology alone. It is about incentives. When money flows toward engagement at any cost, the system rewards whatever keeps people watching, betting, and returning.
The wild west does not announce itself. It looks like freedom at first.
Related Laterstack Stories
For inquiries, tips, or submissions: hello@laterstack.com