Under the particular circumstances of my existence, I find grocery delivery a very helpful service, but I have too many grocery bags (again).
Again (3 July 2026)
The “(again)” is because this is now my second time arguing with a grocery delivery service about unwanted bags.
I used to get grocery delivery service from Voilà, but I stopped because they kept foisting stinky one-use paper bags on me at some cost. It was a mandatory fee for unnecessary waste. I failed to convince Voilà to knock it off with this presumably high-margin but environmentally destructive practice and started using Metro instead.
This change had been going reasonably well for me, including because Metro packed groceries into reusable tubs on refrigerated trucks. I could collect my groceries from the driver with zero additional waste. Huzzah!
But Metro made a change recently, from two-hour delivery windows, usually with a regular driver in a branded refrigerated truck, to one-hour delivery windows, so far exclusively with third-party drivers, which means groceries get delivered in “reusable” bags.
I put “reusable” in quotation marks because I have quite literally no use for them. I have use for a few large reusable bags, sure. I do not have use for dozens of small ones.
So far (unlike Voilà) there’s been no mandatory additional cost for Metro’s bags, but it stresses me out to see them multiplying in the closet. So I sent two questions via Metro’s online comment form.
Metro recently shifted to one-hour delivery windows and since then my orders keep getting delivered by a third-party driver instead of one of Metro’s refrigerated trucks. How do customers opt in to Metro’s previous service?
If Metro plans to only ever use third-party drivers from now on, this procedural change is going to generate an obscene amount of Metro-branded reusable bags. These cannot, environmentally, be single use. How do customers return them to Metro for reuse?
(The original version was friendlier but it turns out Metro set a 500-character limit on its online form (and then still wouldn’t let me submit what my text editor said was 500 characters including spaces) so I had to make cuts.)
I’m unsure if the photo attachment illustrating the human-size and growing problem went through:
I wonder if the trend I’m observing means that Metro has done away with branded refrigerated trucks entirely. I know they had some issues maintaining refrigeration last summer, I assume because of heat waves and maybe also the cost of paying mechanics.
I wonder if this means that Metro laid off their regular drivers, who maybe had an hourly wage and some security, in favour of gig workers, who may not even have air conditioning for themselves (much less frozen items) in their personal and depreciating vehicles, as they drive individual orders in too many bags around the city.
Metro’s branding for this change has been that one-hour delivery windows are better for customers. So far that has not been my experience. I do not want to generate this much waste.
I imagine I’m not the only customer who dislikes this change. I hope others will also complain.
The problem grows (10 July 2026)
Groceries delivered again today by a “trusted delivery partner” (racialized man trying to make a living out of his car).
I commented to him about the proliferation of useless bags. He tries to give them to neighbours. I believe this confirms I’m not the only one frustrated.
I sent another message to Metro customer service:
I’m going to have to write to their legal department (17 July 2026)
Another week, another haul of bags, another complaint to Metro’s customer service team.
Since this is actually insulting and Metro Customer Support has not yet responded to my previous questions about how they plan to collect and reuse their bags, I feel the urge to escalate to their legal department. Legal may even be the ones who came up with the idea to print the disclaimer. “The bags aren’t our responsibility once we tell customers to reuse them.”
No, not “case resolved” (20 July 2026)
A reply from “Customer Care,” subject line: “Cas Résolu | Case Resolved”:
We acknowledge receipt of your email, and we thank you for taking the time to write to us.
We are sorry to hear about your concerns regarding the reusable bags and your recent delivery experience.
Please note that, at this time, it is not possible to choose the delivery method or request delivery by a refrigerated truck.
Regarding the reusable bags, we understand your concerns. We have shared your comments with the appropriate team, as customer feedback is important to us and helps us improve our services.
We apologize for any inconvenience this situation may have caused and appreciate you taking the time to share your feedback.
My response:
This case has not been resolved.
I have 23 useless bags already, from less than a month of Metro’s new delivery policy.
It is legally insufficient for Metro to stamp “please reuse” onto mountains of single-use garbage.
What is Metro doing to collect and reuse the proliferation of bags resulting from Metro’s new delivery policy?
I did write something up for their legal department but I’m not happy with it yet. There’s a fine line to walk in tone and content. And the letter will need to be updated now. But also now I have an email address.
First demand (24 July 2026)
Three weeks in a row, I submitted complaints using Metro’s online form (500 character max), and yesterday I received an empty email asserting Case Resolved on a second one:
Greetings,
Thank you for contacting us.
We sincerely apologize for the frustration and inconvenience caused by the recent changes to our delivery service.
We appreciate you taking the time to share your concerns regarding the increased use of single-use bags and the environmental impact. Please be assured that your comments have been forwarded to the appropriate department for review and consideration.
Customer feedback is important to us, and we value the opportunity to improve our services.
Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.
I replied Case NOT Resolved today to that email address with my first demand: reimbursement of the subscription fee.
This is now my fifth time writing to Metro about bags (three customer service forms, two emails). So far Metro has entirely failed to answer the basic question: “how is Metro going to collect these otherwise single-use bags for reuse?”
It is inadequate for Metro to reply “be assured that your comments have been forwarded to the appropriate department for review and consideration.” It is inadequate for Metro to stamp “reuse this bag” on the mountains of single-use garbage it is dumping on customers. Neither statement resolves the environmental problem Metro created.
In just a few weeks (see attached photos), I am up to 23 bags. The delivery service I paid Metro the subscription fee for specifically allowed me to choose “NO PACKAGING” under “Packaging Preferences.” Generating less unnecessary waste is important to me as a customer. In fact, that’s the option I chose for each of those three orders this month.
If Metro is unwilling to reinstate its previous delivery policy, of regular employees driving refrigerated trucks and delivering from reusable tubs, then I expect Metro to reimburse me the cost of my subscription as of the date of my last order. ([calculation])
I do not consent as a paying customer to Metro’s change in policy that makes me complicit in generating so much garbage.
I attached photos of all three deliveries, for their records. I think this is a better record to start writing to their legal department.
“How about store credit?” (25 July 2026)
Another email from Metro asserting case resolved, this time offering me $15 off a future order as a “goodwill gesture.”
My reply:
Please explain to me how Metro figures a $15 credit that would result in more bags resolves the issue.
Collecting data? (4 August 2026)
There have been more back-and-forths with Metro.
Forth: I make some very good points about Metro unilaterally changing the terms of the agreement in a way that is unsatisfactory to customers and then refusing to refund what customers prepaid on the agreement.
Back: Metro Customer Service hits reply, deletes my very good points, and vomits empty sentences about corporate’s deep concern, stamped “Case Resolved.”
I’m still working on the letter to legal, debating whether to just focus on the refund first or also raise the broader issues. Maybe it’s better to start small, get them responding to me, before making clear that I also expect them to take accountability for their environmental shit. But: standing is more of a question if they refund me first. So. Still working on that first contact.
I ended up trying a different delivery service today and am having complicated thoughts / feelings about it.
I think, based on evidence including a phone call, that what happened is this:
First thing this morning, a picker at a “fulfilment centre” (?) assembled my order, but then the driver for it fell through for unknown reasons, and so the grocery chain I gave my credit card info to abandoned that route (and delivery window) and sub-delegated to Door Dash instead.
The Door Dash driver then had to go pick the order a second time, himself, at a random store, resulting in substitutions and missing items, unlike in the original version of the order, which presumably someone at the fulfilment centre had to unpick (return to the shelves).
As he handed me my groceries from his private vehicle, the driver tried to explain something about the bags, but I’m not sure what it was. It could have just been a warning that the (paper) bags are awful for carrying heavy items (since the handles cut off circulation), but I think it was that he’d be happy to have the bags back for reuse, possibly because the rule is that the gig-work driver who picks an order at a store has to pay for the bags to deliver it in. I wouldn’t put it past capitalism to establish that rule. Another cost to offload onto workers.
I tried to ask the driver, once I’d put the groceries away, using our text chain where he’d explained his substitutions, what it was he’d said about the bags (and if he’d gotten the tip). The reply: “This number cannot be used anymore. Please contact DoorDash support for assistance.”
So that’s all deeply depressing. The societal choices could have been food safety, zero waste, and workers not being exploited. Everybody should have standing to argue that.
“I’d like to talk to someone in legal” (8 August 2026)
My day felt unproductive and I was a bit cranky, so I phoned Metro in the hopes that conversation would be more successful than emailing them has been.
I learned from a pleasant phone agent that Metro has a policy that a refund on a delivery pass is unavailable to customers who’ve placed more than twelve orders (which I had). I asked where on the website that policy is set out. I got put on hold.
When the pleasant agent returned, I learned the website does not, in fact, explain that policy in advance to customers. I made the point that a corporation cannot rely on a secret policy to bind customers, any more than a corporation can unilaterally change the terms of a subscription agreement and then refuse to refund a customer who doesn’t agree to the new terms.
“This is a legal point,” I emphasized. “I’d like to talk to someone in legal.“
In theory, someone “internal” will be getting back to me.
To increase the odds of that, I sent an email summarizing this latest conversation and inviting Metro’s legal department to resolve the issue promptly.
Escalation (13 August 2026)
No one “internal” to Metro has gotten back to me. My latest email:
I have still not received a refund for the [X] unused days of the [Y]-day delivery pass I paid for, and Metro’s legal department has not yet returned my phone call.
Let me be very clear: if the Metro corporation requires me to enlist a court to explain that Metro does not have the legal right to unilaterally change the terms of its subscription service and then refuse to refund customers who object, I will be seeking more than [X/Y x cost] plus tax.
Also a distressing update on the replacement grocery delivery service I tried on August 4.
I had phoned the replacement service’s call centre that day when my picked order went undelivered throughout the entire delivery window, to try to get my order delivered and also to understand what happened. I was told the issue would be escalated, and over the next few days I got a few emails that said nothing useful (including “your feedback has been shared with the appropriate department for immediate attention” and “your feedback has been documented and will be taken into consideration to help improve our service and prevent similar issues from occurring in the future”).
Given the purpose of escalation, I asked for specifics. Why was the perfect order that was picked before 9 am not delivered by 10? Why was it necessary for a second order to be picked, with substitutions and missing items, and only delivered after 11? What was the actual problem in the chain and how can it be addressed to prevent this issue in the future?
The latest email from customer service ran through a partial chronology. It seems the driver who actually succeeded in delivering my items got the subcontract somewhere between 10:20 and 10:45, two hours after the original order was picked, half an hour after the delivery window ended, and corporate’s solution to “the inconvenience caused” was to ban that driver from their platform.
This is, to understate things, fucked up. The driver was not responsible for the shitshow. This response is corporate scapegoating, with disregard for gig-workers’ ability to feed themselves.
Are other customers satisfied with this kind of response? Nothing will get better next time, but at least someone got beheaded? Most people, I know, just don’t have the time and energy to fight these battles.
I called the replacement service’s phone line again this morning, to communicate that banning the driver from the platform was not the solution and the driver should be reinstated. Will that happen? I don’t know, but my feedback has been escalated.
I asked today’s agent a few operational questions to try to pinpoint where the actual problem was that day (again: not the driver) and she sounded like she desperately wanted to get off the phone. So then I started worrying that my inquiries about how things work would get her fired too. Don’t ask questions, is the message I’m getting. Innocent low-wage people will be blamed.
This is capitalism (1 September 2026)
The update on the replacement grocery delivery service I tried is that they unbanned the driver whose fault it was not, and the grocery chain refused to explain how they would prevent a future order from also going wrong. It sounds like their delivery service depends entirely on individual Doordash drivers deciding an order is worth their time, so it could happen repeatedly that delivery windows are missed, or maybe even that orders go unfulfilled.
The update on Metro is that they still haven’t reimbursed me, nor have they returned my call, so I sent another email this morning, including these two paragraphs:
I will remind Metro once again that a corporation does not have the legal right to unilaterally change the terms of a subscription service and then refuse to refund the difference when the customer rejects the new terms.
I will give notice once again, very clearly in writing, that if Metro puts me in the position of having to get a court to explain this basic principle to Metro’s legal department, I will be seeking additional costs such as filing fees, disbursements, and the cost of my time, which is $250 per hour when the work is explaining basic legal principles to corporations operating in bad faith.
I suppose it might be good for me to learn how small claims court works.