Costco Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over “No Preservatives” Claims on Rotisserie Chicken
Costco Wholesale Corporation is facing a nationwide class-action lawsuit in federal court alleging that the retailer misled consumers by advertising its Kirkland Signature Seasoned Rotisserie Chicken as containing “no preservatives” despite the inclusion of added ingredients that allegedly serve preservative functions.
The lawsuit was filed on January 22 on behalf of two California consumers who say they relied on Costco’s marketing when purchasing the product. The complaint names Costco Wholesale Corporation and challenges representations made in online product listings and in-store signage.
According to the filing, Costco markets the rotisserie chicken as containing “No Preservatives,” while the ingredient list identifies sodium phosphate and carrageenan. The lawsuit claims those additives are used to maintain texture, stabilize proteins, and extend shelf life, which the consumers argue contradicts the marketing claim.
The consumers bringing the case, Bianca Johnston of Big Bear, California, and Anatasia Chernov of Escondido, California, allege they would not have purchased the rotisserie chicken, or would have paid less for it, had they known the product contained added ingredients they consider preservatives. The complaint states that the same marketing statements appeared across Costco stores and online listings nationwide, which the consumers say affected purchasing decisions beyond their own transactions.
In a statement released by the consumers’ attorneys, the lawsuit argues that shoppers rely on clear ingredient claims when choosing food products and that marketing statements should align with ingredient disclosures. The filing claims that advertising a product as containing “No Preservatives” while listing additives that perform preservative functions violates state consumer protection laws.
The lawsuit brings claims under several state statutes, including the California Consumers' Legal Remedies Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, the California False Advertising Law, and the Washington Consumer Protection Act. These laws prohibit businesses from marketing products in ways that are likely to mislead consumers about important product characteristics.
In false advertising cases, courts focus less on technical ingredient classifications and more on how marketing claims are likely to be understood by everyday shoppers. Judges typically apply what is known as the reasonable consumer standard, which asks whether an ordinary buyer, acting reasonably, would likely be misled by the challenged statement.
The complaint alleges that an unqualified “No Preservatives” claim conveys a clear message that the product contains no added ingredients that preserve quality, texture, or shelf life. The consumers argue that a shopper seeing that claim would not expect the presence of additives that perform those functions, regardless of how the ingredients are described elsewhere, and that this disconnect lies at the center of whether the marketing complies with state consumer protection laws.
Food labeling disputes often turn on this distinction between what a product technically contains and the overall impression created by its advertising. Courts routinely examine whether a marketing statement creates a misleading message at the point of purchase, even when ingredient information is disclosed separately.
Costco has not yet responded to the allegations in court and has not issued a public statement addressing the lawsuit.
