Costco has asked a federal judge to dismiss a proposed class-action lawsuit challenging the way its Kirkland Signature rotisserie chicken was promoted to shoppers. The case centres on whether the retailer’s former “no preservatives” claim was misleading because the chicken contains sodium phosphate and carrageenan.
The lawsuit was filed on January 22, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The named plaintiffs are Bianca Johnston of Big Bear, California, and Anatasia Chernov of Escondido, California.
Johnston and Chernov want to represent customers across the United States, as well as a separate group of California purchasers. However, the court has not approved the case as a class action, and the allegations have not been proven.
In a dismissal memorandum filed in June 2026, Costco argued that the complaint does not establish that its advertising was unlawful or that customers suffered a measurable financial loss. The company asked the court to dismiss the claims with prejudice, which could prevent the plaintiffs from submitting another amended version of the same case.
Read More
Why the “no preservatives” claim is disputed
The disagreement involves sodium phosphate and carrageenan, ingredients used in Costco’s seasoned rotisserie chicken. Both substances can affect the texture, moisture and consistency of processed or prepared foods.
The plaintiffs argue that these functions could reasonably be understood as helping preserve the chicken. They claim prominent “no preservatives” messages displayed in warehouses and online gave customers a misleading impression about the product’s ingredients.
According to the complaint, Johnston and Chernov relied on that wording when buying the chicken. They allege they would not have purchased it, or would have paid less, if the marketing had described the ingredients differently.
Costco disputes that interpretation. The retailer says sodium phosphate and carrageenan are included for purposes such as moisture retention, texture and product consistency rather than preservation.
Carrageenan is permitted for use in food under conditions established by federal regulations. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service also explains that phosphates may be used in meat and poultry products to retain moisture and protect flavour.
Additional information about these ingredients and their functions is available through the USDA guidance on additives in meat and poultry.
The lawsuit does not primarily claim that Costco’s chicken was contaminated or unsafe to eat. Instead, the legal question is whether the advertising would have misled a reasonable shopper about the nature or purpose of the listed ingredients.
Costco challenges the alleged price premium
Costco’s dismissal request also challenges the plaintiffs’ claim that customers paid more because of the “no preservatives” message.
The plaintiffs contend that the wording made the chicken appear to have a simpler or more desirable ingredient profile. Their case relies on the theory that the product was worth less than represented, even if its shelf price remained unchanged.
Costco argues that the complaint does not identify a comparable whole rotisserie chicken that was sold for less. The company has kept the price of its rotisserie chicken at $4.99, including after removing preservative-related wording from warehouse signs and online product presentations.
That pricing history could become important because consumer-protection claims usually require plaintiffs to demonstrate an actual economic injury. A disagreement with advertising language may not be enough without evidence that the statement affected the purchase or caused the customer to overpay.
The plaintiffs, however, maintain that a cheaper competing product is not required to prove harm. They argue that the chicken had less value to them because it allegedly did not match the representation that influenced their decision to buy it.
What Costco’s advertising change means
Costco has removed references to preservatives from its rotisserie chicken signs and digital listings. The retailer said the change was intended to make the language used on packaging, warehouse displays and online product pages more consistent.
Changing or removing an advertising statement does not automatically prove that the earlier wording was illegal. It also does not amount to an admission that customers were deceived.
The chicken remains available through Costco’s ordering services. Customers are advised to examine the physical product label for the latest ingredient, allergy and handling information, since online descriptions may not always reflect packaging changes immediately.
The legal dispute comes as Costco continues expanding its warehouse network, including two new Costco store openings in Utah and Florida. The expansion highlights how closely the retailer’s products, pricing and customer promises are followed as its footprint grows.
Store access can also vary around federal holidays, making it important for customers to check local operating schedules. A detailed guide to businesses open and closed on Juneteenth 2026 explains how holiday hours may affect major retailers, government services and other organisations.
What happens next in the lawsuit
The next significant step will be the court’s ruling on Costco’s motion to dismiss. The judge could reject the entire complaint, dismiss only certain claims or allow the plaintiffs to revise parts of their case.
If the lawsuit survives, it could move into evidence gathering and further arguments over whether a nationwide or California class should be certified. Questions about possible damages or compensation would be considered much later.
There is currently no approved settlement, payment programme or claim form connected with the case. Advertisements suggesting that Costco customers can already receive compensation should be treated cautiously and checked against official federal court records.
Until the court issues a decision, the claims remain contested allegations. Costco denies that its former advertising unlawfully misled customers, while the plaintiffs continue to argue that the wording influenced what they purchased and how they valued the product.
Make Swikblog your go-to source on Google for reliable updates, smart insights, and daily trends.
