Costco’s famous $4.99 rotisserie chicken is now at the center of a legal food fight. A couple of crunchy Cali Costco shoppers claim that although the warehouse giant advertised this product as preservative‑free, the bird was anything but. Now, they’ve taken that beef (well, chicken) to court.
A Growing Flock of “Clean Label” Shoppers
Costco has apparently been using big, eye‑catching “no preservatives” signs in its warehouse stores, and similar wording in online listings for its Kirkland Signature Rotisserie Chicken. Any mention of sodium phosphate and carrageenan, if present at all, was allegedly relegated to smaller print on the back of the package, without explaining that these ingredients might act as preservatives.
The eventual lawsuit points out that over time, more and more consumers have started caring about “clean label” products and foods advertised as preservative‑free. It cites an article from The Food Institute that describes how heightened concern over artificial preservatives is driving rapid growth in the clean‑label market. The article talks about a growth in consumers seeking minimally processed, “real” foods, scrutinizing ingredient lists, and holding brands accountable for misleading health or wholesomeness claims. Many shoppers are described as actively looking for products marketed as having no preservatives and putting a lot of weight on clear front‑facing claims like “no preservatives.”
A Birdbrained Labelling Strategy?
The plaintiffs hailed from California, which is perhaps not a huge surprise. The Golden State helped pioneer the modern organic food movement. The state is a forerunner in organic and “better‑for‑you” food trends that sometimes find their way into law – for example, California’s early leadership on organic standards and, more recently, its Food Safety Act targeting several controversial food additives.
Bianca Johnston of Big Bear and Anatasia Chernov of Escondido were discerning shoppers that saw Costco’s “no preservatives” signs in a local warehouse and bought rotisserie chickens based on that description.
Later, they learned that these chickens contained sodium phosphate and carrageenan and that these ingredients allegedly act as preservatives. They viewed this as contrary to the “no preservatives” representations they saw in the store, and felt duped.
They recently took the matter to federal court, filing a class action lawsuit against Costco Wholesale Corporation, as well as 10 unnamed individuals alleged to have assisted in Costco’s conduct.
Plaintiff Shoppers Cry ‘Fowl’
The plaintiffs assert consumer‑protection, unfair‑competition, and false‑advertising claims by Costco.
Their legal arguments center on the idea that Costco’s “no preservatives” promise is deceptive because it conflicts with how the product is actually formulated. They allege that sodium phosphate and carrageenan function as chemical preservatives (by buffering pH, chelating metal ions, reducing fat oxidation, preserving texture, and extending shelf life), so a reasonable consumer would not expect a product advertised as having “no preservatives” to contain these ingredients. The complaint says Costco’s bold, unqualified “no preservatives” messaging on in‑store signage and its website creates an overall impression that the chicken is free of added preservatives. Moreover, any back‑of‑package ingredient listing in smaller print does not cure that impression, especially because it does not explain the preservative roles of sodium phosphate and carrageenan.
Building on that, plaintiffs argue that Costco’s conduct violates Washington’s Consumer Protection Act by constituting unfair or deceptive acts in trade or commerce. This is relevant because Costco is HQed in Issaquah, Washington (formerly, Kirkland, hence the name of its store brand).
The complaint also claims that Costco’s deceptive labelling causes California consumers harm under the state’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act. This purportedly amounts to unlawful and unfair business practices under California’s Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law.
The plaintiffs claim Costco knew (or should have known) that the “no preservatives” claim was important to consumers. They alleged that the company used the claim to drive sales or obtain a price premium (although Costco’s chicken is a $5 product that the wholesaler loses money on), and that consumers like Johnston and Chernov would not have purchased the rotisserie chickens (or at least, would have paid less) if they had known about the presence of the supposed preservatives.
‘Cheep’ Chicken Gets Pricey
The plaintiffs are asking the court for two main things: money and changes to Costco’s practices. On the money side, they want Costco to pay back what people supposedly overpaid for the chickens. That could mean either the whole price of the chicken or just the extra amount they say was baked into the price because of the “no preservatives” claim (it’s not clear from the complaint). On the non‑money side, they want a court order stopping Costco from calling the chickens preservative‑free unless the recipe and labels actually match that promise.
The lawsuit was filed on January 22. Less than a week later, Costco admitted: "We use carrageenan and sodium phosphate to support moisture retention, texture, and product consistency during cooking. Both ingredients are approved by food safety authorities." The company also announced that they had removed descriptions or mentions of preservatives from their products, which is not the same as removing the preservatives from their products. They stated: "To maintain consistency among the labeling on our rotisserie chickens and the signs in our warehouses/on-line presentations, we have removed statements concerning preservatives from the signs and on-line presentations," the company said.
Because this is a proposed class action for all buyers nationwide (plus a separate group of California buyers), one of the first big fights will be over whether the judge will let the case go forward on a class‑wide basis. If the classes are approved, you could be in for some money back if you ever bought a bird from them. Can Costco keep its chickens in a row? Stay tuned.
Related Resources:
- Ohio Settles a Bone of Contention Regarding Chicken Wings (FindLaw’s Legally Weird)
- What Your Food Must Legally Tell You (FindLaw’s Law and Daily Life)
- Chicken Companies Probed in Federal Investigation Over Child Labor Claims (FindLaw’s Law and Daily Life)
