Current Events in December 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 platform—ones 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 Cheerios—only 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 weren’t limited to individual items. Entire grocery baskets fluctuated from shopper to shopper—even 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 Instacart’s 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:

• Prices should be transparent, and

• Customers should pay the same amount for the same product.

When shoppers can’t trust prices to be consistent or comparable, the researchers argue, they lose the ability to budget effectively or comparison-shop—core functions of a fair marketplace.

The report concludes that nontransparent pricing experiments “aren’t 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.

• Uber cuts EV incentives as costs rise
• Drivers face uncertainty amid shrinking bonuses
• Company shifts focus to autonomous electric fleets

Uber is scaling back its once-high-profile effort to convert its driver fleet to electric vehicles, slashing bonuses and ending several programs that previously rewarded drivers for switching from gas cars to EVs. The move marks a significant recalibration of the company’s clean-transportation strategy at a moment when EV adoption nationwide has slowed.

For years, Uber offered thousands of dollars in bonuses to drivers who purchased or leased electric vehicles. But those incentives proved costly, and internal spending fell short of the company’s own targets. Uber is now discontinuing many of these payments, leaving drivers who had counted on them facing new financial uncertainty.

Market headwinds contribute to slowdown

The shift comes against a backdrop of nationwide EV headwinds: cooling demand, higher interest rates, and slower charging-infrastructure buildout. With the market softening, Uber is reevaluating how aggressively it can push EV adoption among independent drivers already struggling with high vehicle costs.

Rather than funding individual EV purchases, Uber is steering more of its electrification investment toward partnerships with autonomous-vehicle companies. The company has signaled it will rely increasingly on electric robotaxis developed with partners such as Nuro and Lucid, betting that dedicated fleets will deliver emissions reductions faster and more predictably than incentives for its distributed driver base.

Climate pledges now face tougher path

Uber has committed to becoming a zero-emission platform in the U.S., Canada, and Europe by 2030. Cutting EV incentives raises questions about whether it can meet those goals, especially if driver adoption slows. The company maintains that autonomous electric fleets will help keep it on track, but critics say the transition may now require more aggressive regulatory or industry pressure.

AARP has released its latest "Livability Index," scoring every community in the country for the services and amenities that improve quality of life.  

• 7-Eleven paid a record $4.5 million fine for secretly acquiring a gas station without FTC approval

• The company violated a 2018 consent order designed to prevent fuel price manipulation in local markets

• This enforcement action signals stronger merger oversight that could protect consumers from higher gas prices

If you've noticed gas prices varying wildly between stations in your neighborhood, corporate consolidation might be to blame. When big chains gobble up independent stations without proper oversight, it can reduce competition and drive up prices at the pump.

What happened with 7-Eleven

On December 8, 2025, the Federal Trade Commission announced that 7-Eleven will pay a record-breaking $4.5 million penalty for violating antitrust rules. This marks the largest civil penalty ever collected for a prior-notice violation in FTC history.

The violation stems from 7-Eleven's secret acquisition of a fuel outlet in St. Petersburg, Florida, in December 2018. The company was required under a 2018 consent order to notify the FTC before acquiring competing gas stations in 76 specific markets.

Instead, 7-Eleven bought the station without telling anyone. The company didn't inform the FTC about the acquisition until March 2022 — more than three years later.

The bigger picture on gas station consolidation

This case originated from 7-Eleven's massive $3.3 billion acquisition of 1,100 Sunoco fuel outlets in 2018. The FTC found this mega-merger would harm competition and raise fuel prices for consumers in 76 local markets.

The consent order was designed to prevent exactly what happened in St. Petersburg — stealth acquisitions that reduce competition without regulatory review.

How to protect yourself from gas price manipulation

1. Use gas price apps like GasBuddy or Waze to find the cheapest stations in your area and avoid price-gouging locations

2. Report suspected price fixing to the FTC at reportfraud.ftc.gov if you notice identical pricing across competing stations

3. Support independent gas stations when possible, as they often offer more competitive pricing than large chains

4. Consider fuel rewards programs that aren't tied to a single chain to maintain flexibility in where you shop

5. Monitor local news for proposed gas station mergers in your area and submit comments to the FTC if you're concerned about reduced competition

What this enforcement means going forward

The FTC is signaling a tougher stance on merger violations under new leadership. Daniel Guarnera, Director of the FTC's Bureau of Competition, stated that "merger remedies that protect competition are once again on the table."

This aggressive enforcement could prevent future stealth acquisitions that harm consumers. 7-Eleven was also required to sell the St. Petersburg station and commit to additional approval requirements for future purchases.

The bottom line: This record penalty shows regulators are serious about preventing gas station consolidation that drives up prices. While you can't control corporate mergers, you can vote with your wallet by choosing competitive stations and staying informed about proposed acquisitions in your area. The FTC's renewed enforcement efforts could mean more stable gas prices and better competition at the pump.

• President plans “One Rulebook” for artificial intelligence, aiming to override state regulations
• Big Tech backs a unified federal standard, while state leaders in both parties warn of lost consumer protections
• Order expected to challenge state authority through preemption, lawsuits and potential funding restrictions

President Trump says he'll issue an executive order that will block state attempts to protect consumers from abuses by artificial intelligence (AI), responding to the pleas of the Big Tech companies that are in a race to dominate the fast-evolving technology.

The action would mark a major victory for tech giants that have urged the administration to preempt state laws — including those intended to protect children — that they view as fragmented and burdensome. It is also likely to spark sharp backlash from governors, attorneys general and lawmakers who say states must retain the ability to protect consumers.

“There must be only One Rulebook if we are going to continue to lead in AI,” Trump wrote on Truth Social, adding that companies cannot be expected to secure “50 approvals every time they want to do something.”

Details unclear, but preemption strategy expected

Though Trump did not provide specifics, Reuters reported last month that the White House is considering an order that would challenge state AI laws through federal preemption, court action and restrictions on federal funding.

The proposal represents an escalation of Trump’s earlier push for Congress to insert language blocking state AI regulations into a major defense bill. Lawmakers from both parties rejected that idea, and the Senate voted 99–1 to preserve state authority over AI legislation.

Companies including OpenAI, Google, Meta and venture firm Andreessen Horowitz have lobbied heavily for federal rules that override state statutes. Industry leaders argue that complying with disparate regulations would slow innovation, burden developers and allow China to outpace the U.S. in AI leadership.

They say a unified national framework would provide consistent expectations and reduce legal uncertainty across jurisdictions.

States insist on guardrails to protect residents

State leaders—Republican and Democrat alike—say local governments must retain the ability to respond to AI risks affecting their citizens.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis last week proposed an AI “bill of rights” that would include privacy protections, parental controls and consumer safeguards. Other states have enacted laws banning nonconsensual sexual imagery, prohibiting unauthorized political deepfakes, restricting discriminatory AI practices, and regulating high-risk AI systems. California will soon require major developers to document how they plan to address catastrophic-risk scenarios.

North Carolina Attorney General Jeff Jackson, a Democrat, rebuked Trump’s earlier attempt to block state oversight. “Congress can’t fail to create real safeguards and then block the states from stepping up,” he said.

A new federal-state clash over tech regulation

The anticipated order sets the stage for a sweeping legal and political battle over AI governance, with implications for privacy, innovation and consumer protection.

If the White House proceeds with the “One Rule” directive, courts will likely be asked to decide whether the federal government can sharply limit state authority in an area where Congress has yet to enact comprehensive legislation.

State officials warn that, absent robust federal standards, a preemption effort would leave millions of residents exposed to risks ranging from fraud to civil-rights violations. Tech companies counter that only a uniform national rule will allow the U.S. to maintain global AI competitiveness.

The executive order is expected later this week.

Examples of state AI/“deepfake” and AI-systems laws

• Colorado AI Act — Colorado in 2024 passed legislation regulating “high-risk” AI systems that affect areas such as employment, housing, insurance and government services. 

• ELVIS Act (Tennessee) — This 2024 law prohibits unauthorized AI-generated voice or likeness impersonations. It was touted as a protection against AI-enabled voice cloning and deepfakes. 

• State laws banning or restricting distribution of AI-generated or otherwise manipulated “deepfake” sexual imagery or nonconsensual intimate content — Forty-six states have enacted laws prohibiting creation or distribution of explicit deepfakes, including “revenge porn,” to protect individuals’ privacy and prevent abuse. 

• State laws regulating use of deepfakes in political or election-related communications — As of 2025, roughly 28 states have passed laws restricting AI-generated media used in political campaigns or elections, aiming to curb misinformation and deception. 

What these laws seek to do — and what preemption could erase

These state-level laws typically aim to:

• Ban nonconsensual or exploitative sexual content created by AI.

• Prohibit impersonation or unauthorized use of a person’s likeness or voice via AI (e.g., the ELVIS Act).

• Regulate AI-generated content used in elections or political messaging.

• Impose transparency or safety requirements on use of “high-risk” AI systems — for example, to prevent discriminatory outcomes in housing, employment or insurance (as with the Colorado law).

If a federal executive order imposed a single national rule that preempts state laws, many or all of those protections could be voided — along with any state-level enforcement mechanisms.

Why state-level action has surged

• Rapid expansion of generative-AI and deepfake tools has made misuse easier and cheaper; lawmakers responded with targeted bans on nonconsensual deepfakes and AI-enabled impersonation. (multistate.us)

• Growing awareness that discrimination, bias or safety harms could arise from AI systems used in sensitive areas (hiring, housing, public services) — prompting laws like Colorado’s targeting “high-risk” systems. (Wikipedia)