I think I am writing a new book about hacking in general . . .
Which definition of hacking are you talking about, Bruce? The "classic" one of simply thinking up a clever solution to a problem, or the currently accepted one of maliciously breaking into a system without authorization (what used to be called cracking).
First, does this count as a hack?
Not in the modern sense. As soon as I read the first excerpt, I immediately thought of eBay snipe bots that you then mentioned. It's only doing what the existing customer is authorized to do. It may be in violation of their user agreement, but that's a separate matter.
There used to be a time when telephones had slow rotary dials, and early touch tone phones didn't have a redial button. So when it came to radio contests that asked people to call in quick, were people "hacking" simply because they had the newer phones? There are countless examples of things like this, where people get an "unfair advantage" simply because they use a different tool to get the job done. None are "hackers" in any sense of the term.
Second, should Instacart take action against this?
Yes. The idea that legal action is the way to go, though, is dumb. They can throttle their server if anyone, bot or not, is hitting it too frequently. Dropping IPs into the firewall will also stop the traffic dead. I really don't know what else they could be taking an issue with, let alone a legal issue. If they had competent management, they'd instead seek to implement whatever valued "feature" is being made possible by the Cartdash bot (or any other automated system).
Third, does Instacart even stand a chance in the long run.
No. They have customers who have to go to external parties to get a usable system. If they have no process in place to internalize that segment of the market, they will always be at risk of losing business to a competitor who will properly respond to customer demands.
7a9e98e800018ce5bd33e438aea93cb748daa80c2aaa2976bfc5223915a74b2c