That golden, juicy rotisserie chicken sitting in the Costco deli section has been a go-to dinner solution for millions of families. At just $4.99, it seems like the perfect deal. But now, two California shoppers are claiming the warehouse giant has been stretching the truth about what goes into those birds. A new lawsuit says the chicken isn’t as simple as the signs suggest, and it could affect anyone who has ever grabbed one off the shelf.
What the lawsuit actually claims about the chicken
Two women from California decided they had enough of what they call misleading labels. Anatasia Chernov from Escondido and Bianca Johnston from Big Bear filed a class-action lawsuit against Costco in federal court. They say the store’s signs and website made it seem like the Kirkland Signature Seasoned Rotisserie Chicken had no preservatives at all. According to them, this just isn’t true, and they relied on those claims when deciding to buy the chicken for their families.
The lawsuit claims the chicken actually contains two ingredients that work as preservatives. These are sodium phosphate and carrageenan. The women argue that Costco knew about these ingredients and their purpose but still put up signs saying “No Preservatives.” They believe this created a false impression that tricked customers into thinking they were getting something cleaner than what they actually paid for.
The two ingredients at the center of everything
So what exactly are sodium phosphate and carrageenan? These aren’t household names, but they show up in more foods than most people realize. Carrageenan comes from red seaweed and works as a thickener. It keeps things smooth and consistent. Think chocolate milk, some baby formulas, processed meats, and even diet sodas. It’s been around for a long time and helps products maintain their texture without separating or getting weird.
Sodium phosphate does a similar job but focuses more on keeping meat moist during cooking. According to the FDA, it’s commonly used in meat and poultry products. Both ingredients are on the FDA’s list of things generally recognized as safe for eating. The lawsuit doesn’t argue these ingredients are dangerous. Instead, it focuses on whether calling the chicken “preservative-free” is honest when these ingredients are part of the recipe.
Why the fine print might not be enough
Here’s where things get interesting. The lawsuit admits that the ingredients might be listed somewhere on the packaging. But it argues that any mention was buried in tiny print on the back of the label. Most shoppers don’t pull out reading glasses to study every word on a rotisserie chicken container. They see a big sign that says “No Preservatives” and take it at face value. Who wouldn’t? The lawsuit says this creates a problem.
The legal argument is that small-print ingredient lists don’t cancel out large-print marketing claims. When a store puts up prominent signs making bold statements, customers naturally trust those statements. The lawsuit states that even if the preservatives were technically listed, the label didn’t explain what they do. Without that context, shoppers had no way to know the “no preservatives” claim might not tell the whole story.
What Costco had to say about all this
Costco didn’t stay quiet after the lawsuit hit the news. The company released a statement acknowledging the situation and explaining their reasoning. They said they use carrageenan and sodium phosphate for specific purposes. These ingredients help the chicken retain moisture, maintain its texture, and stay consistent during the cooking process. Basically, they help make sure every chicken comes out the same way.
The company also pointed out that both ingredients have approval from food safety authorities. But here’s the big move. Costco announced they’ve already removed the signs and online statements about preservatives. They said this change was made “to maintain consistency” between their labels and their marketing. That’s a pretty quick response, and it suggests the company wants to avoid further confusion about what’s actually in their famous chicken.
The lawyers aren’t holding back on this one
Wesley Griffith is the California managing partner at the Almeida Law Group, and he’s representing the two women suing Costco. He’s been pretty direct about why he thinks this case matters. According to him, people trust claims like “No Preservatives” when they’re shopping for food. These aren’t just marketing phrases to lawyers. They’re promises that families use to decide what they’re comfortable feeding their kids.
Griffith made a pointed statement about the case. He said Costco’s own ingredient list contradicts its marketing, calling that “unlawful” and “unfair.” The lawsuit claims the company has “systematically cheated customers” out of possibly hundreds of millions of dollars through this advertising approach. Those are strong words, and they show the legal team believes this case has real weight. Whether a court agrees remains to be seen, but the accusations aren’t small.
Who could be part of this class-action suit
Class-action lawsuits work differently than regular lawsuits. If a court certifies this case as a class action, it wouldn’t just be about two women from California. It could include anyone in the entire United States who ever bought a Costco rotisserie chicken based on those “no preservatives” claims. That’s potentially millions of people, since these chickens are one of the store’s most popular items.
The plaintiffs haven’t specified exactly how much money they’re seeking. The complaint mentions “tens — if not hundreds — of millions of dollars” when describing the alleged scope of the problem. If the case moves forward and gets certified, affected customers might eventually receive some form of compensation. How much and when would depend entirely on how the legal process plays out over the coming months or years.
Why shoppers care so much about these labels
Walk through any grocery store and you’ll see claims everywhere. Free-range, organic, no artificial ingredients, preservative-free. These phrases have become shorthand for “this is the better option.” People scan labels quickly and make snap decisions based on a few key words. Nobody has time to research every single ingredient in every product they buy. That’s exactly why prominent claims matter so much to everyday shoppers.
The lawsuit taps into a growing frustration many people feel about food marketing. Is what companies say actually true? Can shoppers trust the signs in front of them? When a store as big as Costco makes a claim, millions of people believe it without question. This case raises the broader question of what responsibility retailers have to make sure their marketing matches reality. It’s a conversation that goes beyond just chicken.
The $4.99 price tag that keeps people coming back
Costco’s rotisserie chicken has been a loss leader for years. The company reportedly loses money on each bird but uses them to get people into stores. Once inside, customers tend to buy other things. It’s a smart strategy that has made the $4.99 chicken legendary among bargain hunters. Along with the $1.50 hot dog combo, it’s one of those prices that just seems too good to be true in 2026.
The lawsuit doesn’t change the price or the popularity. People will probably keep buying these chickens no matter what happens in court. But the case does add a layer of awareness that wasn’t there before. Some shoppers might look at the labels more closely now. Others won’t care at all. Either way, the days of assuming the “no preservatives” sign told the whole story are officially over for anyone paying attention.
How this affects Costco as a company right now
The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, and the case is still in its early stages. Costco’s stock took a small dip when the news broke, dropping about half a percent during trading. That’s not a huge hit, and shares are still up over 13% for the year. Investors don’t seem panicked, but they’re definitely watching to see what happens next in the courtroom.
Meanwhile, Costco continues expanding. The company is opening new stores and even building a new distribution center in Florida. Business appears to be moving forward despite the legal challenge. The quick removal of the preservative claims from signs and websites suggests the company wants to clean up this issue fast. Whether that’s enough to make the lawsuit go away or just the beginning of a longer fight remains unclear.
This lawsuit is a good reminder to take a second look at food labels before tossing items into the cart. Companies don’t always tell the full story with their big signs and catchy claims. The Costco chicken situation shows that even trusted brands can face questions about their marketing. Whether this case changes anything long-term depends on the courts, but for now, shoppers have one more reason to read the fine print before dinner.
