ON
← Back to feed
United StatesSports11 days ago

Costco responds to lawsuit over customer-favorite food item: 'Fatally flawed'

Costco is responding to a class-action lawsuit in Southern California that accuses the retail giant of false advertising regarding its $4.99 rotisserie chicken, which is marketed as containing 'no preservatives.' The plaintiffs argue that the chicken contains sodium phosphate and carrageenan, which they claim function as preservatives. Costco's legal team has dismissed the lawsuit as 'fatally flawed,' asserting that these additives are not classified as preservatives under FDA guidelines and are clearly listed in the product's ingredient list.

Skip to content

(NEXSTAR) – Costco is firing back at class action-lawsuit filed in Southern California court accusing the membership club of falsely advertising that its fan-favorite $4.99 rotisserie chicken contained “no preservatives.”

The two California plaintiffs, represented by Almeida Law Group, accused Costco in the Jan. 22 filing of misleading customers into thinking the birds were preservative-free when they actually contained both sodium phosphate and carrageenan.

Carrageenan is derived from seaweed and is often used as a stabilizer or thickener, while sodium phosphate is often used to extend shelf life and help meat maintain moisture .

“Consumers reasonably rely on clear, prominent claims like ‘No Preservatives,’ especially when deciding what they and their families will eat,” Almeida Law Group partner Wesley M. Griffith said in a statement after the lawsuit was initially filed. “Costco’s own ingredient list contradicts its marketing. That’s unlawful, and it’s unfair.”

Charles Sipos, the attorney representing Costco in the case, rejected the plaintiffs’ claim, calling it “fatally flawed” in a recent court filing obtained by Nexstar. Sipos argued that the two additives are not defined as preservatives in FDA regulations, and that they are “unambiguously” mentioned in the ingredients list as part of the meat’s seasoning.

In a statement after filing the lawsuit in January, the plaintiffs’ attorneys also accused Costco of having “systemically cheated customers out of tens – if not hundreds – of millions of dollars” by advertising their Kirkland Signature Seasoned Rotisserie Chickens as being preservative-free.

Sipos countered that claim in the latest filing, saying that the long-standing price of $4.99 didn’t change after Costco removed the “no preservatives” label in the wake of the lawsuit.

“Plaintiffs maintain this supposed price premium can be identified by evaluat[ing] the different prices between Costco’s Rotisserie Chicken and competitors’ products,” Sipos continued. “Yet, the Amended Complaint does not identify a single ‘competitor’ who prices a whole rotisserie chicken for sale for less than $4.99.”

Nexstar reached out to Almeida Law Group, which is representing the plaintiffs, but did not immediately receive a reply.

Tags

Copyright 2026 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Read the full article at The Hill
Source document: Class Action Lawsuit Filing

1 reports

The HillIndependentCenter11 days ago
Costco responds to lawsuit over customer-favorite food item: 'Fatally flawed'

Costco is responding to a class-action lawsuit in Southern California that accuses the retail giant of false advertising regarding its $4.99 rotisserie chicken, which is marketed as containing 'no preservatives.' The plaintiffs argue that the chicken contains sodium phosphate and carrageenan, which they claim function as preservatives. Costco's legal team has dismissed the lawsuit as 'fatally flawed,' asserting that these additives are not classified as preservatives under FDA guidelines and are clearly listed in the product's ingredient list.

Bias read (Center): The article presents both sides of the legal dispute without overtly favoring either Costco or the plaintiffs. It includes direct quotes from both parties' representatives and provides factual details about the lawsuit and the legal arguments being made. There is no evident editorializing or biased措

Go to the primary sources (2)

The official sources this coverage is built on. Read them directly to bypass framing.