**Costco Seeks Dismissal of Rotisserie Chicken Lawsuit Over Preservative Claims**
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(jpeg)/costco-store-031326-412f3920485049dfb6ff885c78808844.jpg)
Costco has initiated a legal battle against claims made in a recent class action lawsuit, asserting that its popular rotisserie chicken is mislabelled as being free from preservatives. The wholesale retailer has filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the plaintiffs have failed to substantiate their allegations adequately.
The lawsuit was launched in January by two Californian women, Bianca Johnston and Anastasia Chernov. They contend that Costco’s Kirkland Signature Seasoned Rotisserie Chicken is actually made with two ingredients—sodium phosphate and carrageenan—that they claim serve as preservatives. The plaintiffs allege that these additives help to preserve the chicken’s texture and shelf stability, thus serving a preservative function contrary to the product’s advertised claims.
In a memorandum dated 4 June, which was obtained by PEOPLE, Costco firmly rejected these assertions. The retailer pointed out that the ingredients identified by the plaintiffs are not categorised as preservatives according to recognised standards. Instead, Costco maintains that both sodium phosphate and carrageenan function as seasonings aimed at enhancing moisture retention and ensuring product consistency during cooking.
“We use carrageenan and sodium phosphate to support moisture retention, texture, and product consistency during cooking. Both ingredients are approved by food safety authorities,” the company stated in a position shared with the media on 29 January. In light of the lawsuit, Costco also noted that it has removed any signage claiming its rotisserie chicken to be preservative-free, in an effort to address concerns related to consumer clarity in its labelling.
The plaintiffs have claimed that they were misled into paying a higher price for the chicken based on perceived quality, a situation they argue amounts to “unfair business acts and practices.” They allege that had they been aware of the presence of these ingredients, they would not have chosen to purchase the product.
In its motion to dismiss, Costco countered by asserting that there has not been a demonstrable price premium associated with the product, as the retail price of the rotisserie chicken has remained at £4.99. The retailer also argued that the plaintiffs did not identify any competitors offering a whole rotisserie chicken for a lower price, thereby undermining their claims of being financially harmed.
Furthermore, Costco has labelled the complaint as “fatally flawed,” suggesting that the sources used by Johnston and Chernov to support their argument fail to classify sodium phosphate and carrageenan as preservatives. This, the retailer contends, means that “reasonable consumers” cannot be said to have been deceived by Costco’s marketing practices.
In response to the ongoing lawsuit, the plaintiffs have expressed their intention to purchase the chicken in the future, indicating that they wish to continue enjoying the product. However, they have also stated their concern about relying on Costco’s representations regarding preservatives unless those claims are verified and consistent with the actual ingredients.
Costco’s legal response demands that the plaintiffs’ complaint be dismissed with prejudice, asserting that it would be futile for them to attempt to amend their claims, given the established facts of the case. The memorandum refutes any claims of cognitive injury, maintaining that customer perceptions have not justified the accusations of misleading advertising.
The outcome of this legal dispute could have significant implications for Costco and its product marketing strategies, particularly in the area of labelling and consumer transparency. As the case develops, both sides will prepare to present their arguments, with consumer protection laws in California and Washington being at the centre of this controversy.
With ongoing discussions about food quality and transparency in the marketplace, this lawsuit against Costco serves to highlight the scrutiny that food retailers face regarding their product representations. As the case unfolds, consumers may also be watching closely to see how such legal challenges might shape the future of food labelling in the industry.