Costco is pushing back hard against a proposed class-action lawsuit that accuses the retail giant of misleading shoppers about its popular $5 rotisserie chicken.
In a motion filed last week in the US District Court for the Southern District of California, the warehouse club asked the court to dismiss the case, which was brought in January by two California customers.
The plaintiffs claim Costco’s Kirkland Signature Seasoned Rotisserie Chicken contains carrageenan and sodium phosphate while still being marketed as having “no preservatives.”
According to the lawsuit, that labeling misleads consumers and violates Washington’s Consumer Protection Act, California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and other California statutes.
Costco’s legal team fired back, arguing the case rests on a misunderstanding of how the ingredients are classified.
Attorney Charles Sipos, representing the company, called the false advertising allegations “fatally flawed,” saying the substances in question are not considered preservatives under US Food and Drug Administration regulations.
Instead, he said they are used as part of the chicken’s seasoning mix.
Carrageenan, derived from seaweed, is commonly used in processed foods as a thickener and stabilizer.
Sodium phosphate serves multiple functions in food production, including thickening, curing, leavening, and emulsifying.
The lawsuit seeks to stop Costco from advertising the product as free of preservatives and to allow US customers who purchased the chicken to join a class action seeking monetary damages.
The plaintiffs’ attorneys, Almeida Law Group, allege the “no preservatives” claim allowed Costco to charge a premium price. Costco, however, disputes that argument, with Sipos stating in the filing:
“They allege that Costco’s ‘No Preservatives’ statement enabled the company to charge more for Rotisserie Chicken,” he wrote in the motion. “Yet, the Amended Complaint does not identify a single ‘competitor’ who prices a whole rotisserie chicken for sale for less than $4.99.”
Sipos also argued the plaintiffs fail to demonstrate any concrete harm caused by the labeling claims.