Costco asks court to dismiss lawsuit over 'no preservatives' rotisserie chicken claims

Costco has asked a federal judge to dismiss a consumer lawsuit over the marketing of its Kirkland Signature rotisserie chicken, escalating a dispute over whether the product's "no preservatives" claim misled shoppers.

The motion to dismiss is the latest step in a class-action case filed earlier this year in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California by California residents Bianca Johnston and Anastasia Chernov. The complaint says Costco's labeling and marketing suggested the chicken was preservative-free, even though the product contains sodium phosphate and carrageenan.

What the lawsuit alleges

The plaintiffs say those ingredients perform preservative functions and that shoppers could reasonably have understood Costco's claim to mean the chicken contained no preservatives. Their lawsuit invokes California and Washington consumer-protection laws and argues that the marketing was deceptive.

The dispute turns on how the language would be understood by a reasonable consumer. The plaintiffs are not only challenging the ingredient list, but also the broader message Costco sent to shoppers through signage and online presentations.

Costco's response

Costco has pushed back hard. In reporting on the filing, the company called the case "fatally flawed" and argued that sodium phosphate and carrageenan are not preservatives. Costco says the ingredients are used to support moisture retention, texture and product consistency during cooking.

The company has also said it removed preservative-related wording from signs and online presentations to keep its labeling consistent. That change is part of the backdrop to the legal fight, even as the product remained a signature, high-volume item for the retailer.

Why it matters

The case raises a familiar consumer-law question: whether a marketing claim can be misleading even when the company disputes the technical premise behind it. It also puts a spotlight on whether consumers can show a legally cognizable injury if they bought a product they say was marketed in a deceptive way.

Reporting on the dispute said the rotisserie chicken was still priced at $4.99, underscoring the product's role as a key loss-leader and a notable brand touchpoint for Costco. That gives the lawsuit outsized attention compared with a typical grocery-label dispute.

The broader issue is whether the law looks to regulatory classification alone or to consumer understanding. Earlier coverage noted that sodium phosphate and carrageenan are not classified as preservatives by the FDA, which Costco has relied on in its defense, but the plaintiffs argue the ingredients still function that way in practice.

What happens next

The next step is for the judge to consider Costco's motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs can respond and argue that the claim would have misled reasonable shoppers and caused harm.

The court could dismiss the case, allow the plaintiffs to amend their complaint or let the lawsuit move forward into discovery. For now, the dispute remains at the pleading stage, with Costco trying to end the case before it reaches deeper factual development.

,