A significant legal challenge has emerged for retail giant Costco, with a proposed class-action lawsuit targeting the company's immensely popular $5 rotisserie chicken. The case alleges that Costco has been falsely advertising its Kirkland Signature product as containing no preservatives, while the chicken actually includes two specific additives that function as preservatives.
Legal Action Filed in California
The lawsuit was officially filed on Thursday in San Diego by two California residents: Anatasia Chernov from Escondido and Bianca Johnston from Big Bear. These plaintiffs contend that Costco's in-store signage and official website deliberately create what they describe as "an overall net impression" that the rotisserie chicken is free from added preservatives.
Preservative Allegations Detailed
Central to the legal complaint is the assertion that Costco's rotisserie chicken contains two specific additives: sodium phosphate and carrageenan. The lawsuit states clearly: "The presence of sodium phosphate and carrageenan, added preservatives which function as such in the Rotisserie Chicken, contradict the overall net impression that Costco’s ‘No Preservatives’ representations and advertising create."
According to the plaintiffs, consumers actively rely on these "preservative-free" claims when making their shopping decisions, particularly when selecting food products for themselves and their families. They argue that customers could not reasonably determine before purchase that the chicken allegedly contained these preservatives.
Marketing Versus Ingredient Reality
The legal action further claims that even if the preservatives were technically listed somewhere on the product packaging, they were allegedly buried in small print on the back of labels. The plaintiffs maintain that such minimal disclosure fails to adequately explain the preservative function of these additives and is insufficient to counterbalance the prominent "no preservatives" claims displayed throughout Costco's marketing materials and in-store signage.
Legal Representation Speaks Out
Wesley M. Griffith, California Managing Partner at the Almeida Law Group who is representing the plaintiffs, issued a statement on the firm's website addressing the case. Griffith stated: "Consumers reasonably rely on clear, prominent claims like 'No Preservatives,' especially when deciding what they and their families will eat. Costco's own ingredient list contradicts its marketing. That's unlawful, and it's unfair."
This statement underscores the core argument that consumers place significant trust in straightforward marketing claims, particularly regarding food products, and that companies have a responsibility to ensure their advertising accurately reflects product contents.
Broader Context and Industry Impact
The lawsuit emerges against a backdrop where consumers increasingly scrutinize food labels and marketing claims, particularly regarding additives and preservatives. Costco's $5 rotisserie chicken has achieved something of a cult status among shoppers, known for its consistent pricing and perceived value. This legal challenge potentially threatens not just the product's reputation but also raises questions about transparency in food marketing across the retail sector.
The Independent has reached out to Costco for comment regarding these allegations, though no official response has been published at this time. The case represents a significant development in consumer protection litigation, particularly concerning how major retailers market their private-label food products to health-conscious shoppers.
