Costco Wholesale Corp. (Costco)
Costco Rotisserie Chicken 'No Preservatives' Label Challenged in Court
A proposed class action claims Costco's Kirkland Signature Seasoned Rotisserie Chicken was marketed as having 'no preservatives' even though it allegedly contains sodium phosphate and carrageenan. Shoppers who bought the $4.99 chicken may be part of the proposed nationwide class.
Key facts
- Claim deadline
- No deadline listed
- Potential payment
- Payment varies
- Proof listed
- No proof requirement listed
- Status
- Upcoming
Plain-language overview
Who may qualify?
Eligibility depends on the dates, products, locations, and other terms listed for this claim. Review any criteria below and the official terms before deciding whether it may apply to you.
- Did you purchase Kirkland Signature Seasoned Rotisserie Chicken from Costco
- Did you make these purchases in the United States?
- Were your purchases made during the period when Costco advertised the product as having “no preservatives” (prior to the removal of that language around late January 2026)?
- Did you rely, in whole or in part, on Costco’s “no preservatives” representations on in‑store signage or online when deciding to purchase?
Case overview
What this settlement is about
A newly filed proposed class action takes aim at Costco's popular Kirkland Signature Seasoned Rotisserie Chicken, alleging the retailer's 'no preservatives' claim doesn't hold up. According to the complaint, the chicken actually contains sodium phosphate and carrageenan — ingredients the lawsuit says function as preservatives by extending shelf life and preserving texture, despite not necessarily fitting a narrow legal definition of the term.
The suit claims Costco displayed the 'no preservatives' message prominently both in stores and online, shaping consumer expectations that the product was free of any preservative-like additives. Plaintiffs argue that had they known about these ingredients, they either would have skipped the purchase entirely or paid less for the chicken.
Legally, the complaint raises claims under Washington's Consumer Protection Act, along with California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, and False Advertising Law. It seeks both monetary damages and a court order halting the 'no preservatives' marketing, on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of buyers as well as a California-specific subclass.
