Costco sued for allegedly false “No Preservatives” claims on Rotisserie Chicken

Costco Wholesale Corporation is now at the center of a national class-action lawsuit that claims the company misled consumers with its advertising of Kirkland Signature Seasoned Rotisserie Chicken as having “no preservatives,” despite the presence of added ingredients that function as preservatives. This legal action, filed on January 22 by two consumers from California, challenges Costco’s marketing tactics in both online product descriptions and in-store signage.

The lawsuit highlights the discrepancy between Costco’s claim of “No Preservatives” on the rotisserie chicken packaging and the inclusion of sodium phosphate and carrageenan in the ingredient list. These additives are alleged to serve as preservatives by maintaining texture, stabilizing proteins, and extending the shelf life of the product. The consumers bringing the case, Bianca Johnston and Anastasia Chernov, argue that they would not have purchased the chicken or would have paid less for it if they had known about these added ingredients.

The legal complaint emphasizes that the marketing message of “No Preservatives” on the product packaging influenced purchasing decisions, not only for the plaintiffs but potentially for other consumers nationwide. The lawsuit’s attorneys assert that shoppers rely on clear ingredient information when making food choices and expect marketing claims to align with actual product contents. This discrepancy between advertising and reality, according to the lawsuit, constitutes a violation of state consumer protection laws.

The legal action brought against Costco includes claims under various state statutes, such as the California Consumers’ Legal Remedies Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, the California False Advertising Law, and the Washington Consumer Protection Act. These laws aim to prevent businesses from deceiving consumers about important product characteristics through misleading advertising practices.

In cases of false advertising, courts typically consider how an ordinary consumer would interpret marketing claims rather than technical ingredient classifications. The lawsuit argues that the unqualified statement of “No Preservatives” creates a clear expectation among shoppers that the product does not contain any additional ingredients aimed at preserving its quality, texture, or shelf life. This discrepancy between consumer expectations and actual product contents forms the crux of whether Costco’s marketing adheres to state consumer protection laws.

Food labeling disputes often hinge on the distinction between a product’s technical composition and the overall impression conveyed by its marketing. Courts evaluate whether advertising messages are likely to mislead consumers at the point of purchase, regardless of separate ingredient disclosures. Despite these allegations, Costco has yet to respond to the lawsuit or provide a public statement on the matter.