[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-303428-105":3,"doc-detail-303428-en":81,"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":99},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","instacart-complaint-for-violations-of-the-consumer-protection-procedures-act-and-sales-tax-law","Instacart Complaint for Violations of the Consumer Protection Procedures Act and Sales Tax Law","","A civil complaint filed by the District of Columbia seeks enforcement of consumer protection and sales tax laws against Maplebear, Inc. d/b/a Instacart. The District alleges deceptive fee practices in which a default service fee appeared like a tip, continued despite website changes, and later was made mandatory without refunding affected consumers. The complaint also alleges failure to collect District sales tax on service and delivery fee revenue throughout the relevant period.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/","Template",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/letters/","Letters",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/instacart-complaint-for-violations-of-the-consumer-protection-procedures-act-and-sales-tax-law/303428/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/instacart-complaint-for-violations-of-the-consumer-protection-procedures-act-and-sales-tax-law/303428.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Bintang","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-04","2026-09-19",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",8,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What is the District of Columbia alleging about Instacart’s service fee?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"The District alleges the default service fee was presented in a way that confused consumers and resembled a tip, even though the fee was charged by Instacart and did not affect shopper wages or commissions.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"Did Instacart change its fee practices after media reporting and contact from the District?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"Yes. After April 23, 2018 reporting and District contact, Instacart allegedly changed to a mandatory service fee, but the District claims it refused to refund consumers misled by prior practices.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"What sales tax issues does the complaint raise?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"The District alleges Instacart failed to collect District sales tax on revenue received from its service and delivery fees during the entire period it transacted business in the District.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},303428,1790220575,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",{"doc_id":79,"user_id":84,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":85,"doc_module":22,"category_id":86,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":87,"file_id":88,"file_url":89,"file_type":90,"file_size":91,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":92,"language":93,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":94,"faqs":95,"seo_title":96,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":97,"read_time":98},962085564381,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_6f874abed73319feea01a86fa6f0fab8",18,"IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA  \nCivil Division  \n\n| DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA\u003Cbr>a municipal corporation 400 6th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001,\u003Cbr>Plaintiff,\u003Cbr>v.\u003Cbr>MAPLEBEAR, INC. D/B/AINSTACART\u003Cbr>50 Beale St., Suite 600\u003Cbr>San Francisco, CA 94105\u003Cbr>Serve on:\u003Cbr>COGENCY GLOBAL, INC. Registered Agent\u003Cbr>1025 Vermont Ave. N.W.\u003Cbr>Suite 1130\u003Cbr>Washington, D.C. 20005\u003Cbr>Defendant. | Case No.: |\n| --- | --- |\n\nCOMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION PROCEDURES ACT AND SALES TAX LAW  \nPlaintiff the District of Columbia (“District”), through the Office of the Attorney General, brings this consumer protection and sale tax enforcement action against Defendant Maplebear, Inc. d/b/a Instacart (“Instacart” or the “Company”) for violations ofthe District’s Consumer Protection Procedures Act (“CPPA”), D.C. Code § 28-3901, et seq, and Sales Tax Law, D.C. Code § 47- 2001, et seq. In support of its claims, the District states as follows:  \nINTRODUCTION  \n1. Instacart is an online platform that allows consumers to place orders for groceries with shoppers who select and deliver groceries to the consumer. To use Instacart’s services,  \nconsumers must place delivery orders through Instacart’s mobile application or website. After the consumer places their order, he or she enters a check-out screenflow, where the consumer receivesan order subtotal for the cost of selected groceries, as well as a number of fees imposed by Instacartin connection with delivery. In some versions of the check-out screenflow, consumers can also tip the shopper who completes their order.  \n2. Instacart’s violations of District consumer and sales tax laws arise out of the various fees it has charged District consumers. From September 2016 until at least April 2018, Instacart charged its District consumers a default ten percent “service” fee in connection with the sale of its grocery delivery services. To a reasonable consumer, this service fee looked like a tip: the amount was set as a default percentage of the order total, and consumers had the option to increase or decrease the percentage or waive the amount entirely. But unlike a tip, the service fee went to Instacart and did not change the wages or commissions that the Company paid its shoppers. District consumers’ confusion about the true nature of the service fee was compounded by Instacart’s ambiguous, confusing, and shifting explanations ofthe service fee.  \n3. Around November 2017, only after settling a lawsuit brought by Instacart shoppers, the Company made obscure changes to its website related to the service fee. Still, Instacart continued to apply a default service fee to consumers’ orders. And it did not disclose to consumerson the main check-out screen that this fee was entirely optional, banking on the prospect that many consumers would not discover that the service fee could be waived or would continue to confuse the purpose of this fee and a tip.  \n4. On April 23, 2018, following reporting on this unfair and deceptive practice by multiple media outlets and after being contacted by the District, Instacart changed its practices by  \nimplementing a mandatory service fee. Even after this change was made, Instacart refused torefund consumers who had been misled by Instacart’s prior deceptive practices.  \n5. Additionally, Instacart has failed to collect District sales tax on the revenue it received from its service and delivery fees. Instacart has failed to collect sales tax on either of these fees during the entire time it has transacted business in the District.  \n6. The District brings this case to stop Instacart from engaging in unfair and deceptive trade practices in violation of the CPPA, obtain appropriate restitution and other relief from the Company, and secure payment of all sales taxes owed on Instacart’s business in the District.  \nJURISDICTION  \n7. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case pursuant to D.C. Code §§ 11-921, 28-3909, and 47-","cbCainhzxM1dhUD3","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCainhzxM1dhUD3","pdf",688371,28,"English","# INTRODUCTION\n# JURISDICTION\n# PARTIES\n# FACTS\n## A. Instacart’s Business","[{\"question\":\"What is the District of Columbia alleging about Instacart’s service fee?\",\"answer\":\"The District alleges the default service fee was presented in a way that confused consumers and resembled a tip, even though the fee was charged by Instacart and did not affect shopper wages or commissions.\"},{\"question\":\"Did Instacart change its fee practices after media reporting and contact from the District?\",\"answer\":\"Yes. After April 23, 2018 reporting and District contact, Instacart allegedly changed to a mandatory service fee, but the District claims it refused to refund consumers misled by prior practices.\"},{\"question\":\"What sales tax issues does the complaint raise?\",\"answer\":\"The District alleges Instacart failed to collect District sales tax on revenue received from its service and delivery fees during the entire period it transacted business in the District.\"}]","Instacart Complaint for Violations of the Consumer Protection Procedures Act and Sales Tax Law | PDF",1789803424,10,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":100},[101,106,111,116,121,126,131,134,139],{"id":102,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":103,"show_sort_weight":104,"slug":105},11,"Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":107,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":108,"show_sort_weight":109,"slug":110},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":112,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":113,"show_sort_weight":114,"slug":115},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":117,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":118,"show_sort_weight":119,"slug":120},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":122,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":123,"show_sort_weight":124,"slug":125},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":127,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":129,"slug":130},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":86,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":132,"slug":133},30,"letters",{"id":135,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":136,"show_sort_weight":137,"slug":138},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":140,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":141,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":142},158,"General","general-158"]