There’s a difference between what a label says and what’s actually in the package. Most of us assume those two things match up — that if a product says “no preservatives,” then there are, you know, no preservatives. But a new class-action lawsuit against Costco is arguing that when it comes to their wildly popular $4.99 rotisserie chicken, those two things don’t line up at all.
So what’s the actual problem here?
On January 22, 2026, two women in California filed a proposed class-action lawsuit against Costco in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The core of the complaint is pretty simple: Costco’s Kirkland Signature Seasoned Rotisserie Chicken has been advertised — both in stores and online — as containing “no preservatives.” The lawsuit says that’s not true.
According to the court filing, the chicken actually contains two ingredients that function as preservatives: sodium phosphate and carrageenan. Both are listed on the back of the packaging, but in small print — and the lawsuit argues that fine print doesn’t cancel out the big, bold “no preservatives” claim splashed across in-store signs and marketing materials.
Wait, what even are sodium phosphate and carrageenan?
You’ve probably eaten both of these more times than you realize. Sodium phosphate is a food additive that controls pH levels and reduces fat oxidation. That second part matters because slowing fat oxidation also slows microbial growth and spoilage — which is, by definition, what a preservative does. It’s used in all sorts of processed meats and prepared foods. Costco says they use it to keep the chicken moist and consistent during cooking, which sure, makes sense. But the lawsuit argues that the ingredient still functions as a preservative regardless of why Costco says they add it.
Carrageenan is a different animal entirely (well, it’s actually derived from seaweed). According to WebMD, it’s commonly used as a thickener and preservative in foods. It has no nutritional value. You’ll find it in everything from almond milk to deli meats. Costco has said both ingredients are approved by food safety authorities, which is true — nobody’s claiming these ingredients are dangerous. The question is whether calling the chicken “preservative-free” is honest when it contains them.
The money part is kind of staggering
Here’s where the numbers get interesting. Costco sells more than 157 million rotisserie chickens every single year. That’s not a typo. 157 million. At $4.99 a pop, we’re talking about roughly $783 million in annual rotisserie chicken revenue alone. The lawsuit alleges that Costco “has systemically cheated customers out of tens — if not hundreds — of millions of dollars” through this false advertising.
The proposed class would include anyone in the United States who purchased a Costco rotisserie chicken. There’s also a subclass being proposed specifically for California customers. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary damages, which means we don’t know the exact dollar figure they’re after yet. But given the sheer volume of chickens sold, even a small per-unit settlement would add up fast.
Costco already made a quiet change
This is the detail that jumped out to me. Costco didn’t just deny the allegations and dig in. Instead, in a statement provided to USA Today, the company confirmed it has already removed the “no preservatives” language from its in-store signage and online presentations. That’s a pretty fast pivot for a company that usually takes its time responding to public pressure.
Their official statement read: “To maintain consistency among the labeling on our rotisserie chickens and the signs in our warehouses/on-line presentations, we have removed statements concerning preservatives from the signs and on-line presentations.” They also doubled down on the purpose of the ingredients, saying they’re used “to support moisture retention, texture, and product consistency during cooking.” Make of that what you will. Some might see the label removal as an admission. Costco would probably call it a practical decision.
This isn’t the chicken’s first controversy
If you’ve been following Costco news over the years, you might remember that the rotisserie chicken has been a lightning rod before. The $4.99 price tag has remained unchanged for years, which is remarkable but has raised its own set of questions — like how Costco manages to sell a whole cooked chicken for less than many grocery stores charge for a raw one. The company has been open about the fact that they lose money on every chicken sold. It’s a loss leader, designed to get people into the store.
There have also been concerns about the chickens’ supply chain and animal welfare practices. Costco even built its own massive poultry processing facility in Nebraska a few years back, partly to control costs and partly to keep up with demand. So the bird has a history of generating headlines. This latest lawsuit, though, hits differently because it’s about trust — specifically, whether customers can trust what the label tells them.
The “big sign vs. small print” argument
One of the more interesting legal angles in this case is the tension between marketing and labeling. The lawsuit doesn’t claim Costco hid the ingredients entirely. Sodium phosphate and carrageenan are listed on the back of the packaging. But the complaint argues that a giant sign in the store saying “no preservatives” creates a stronger impression than a tiny ingredient list most people never read. And honestly? That tracks with how most of us actually shop.
Think about your own behavior at Costco. You walk past the rotisserie chicken display, you see the sign, you grab a chicken. Maybe you glance at the weight. You’re probably not flipping the container around and squinting at the ingredient list while navigating a crowded aisle with a flatbed cart. The plaintiffs’ lawyers know this. Their argument is essentially that the marketing creates an “overall net impression” that overrides whatever the fine print says — and that Costco knows it.
They still want to buy the chicken, though
Here’s the part that made me chuckle. Both plaintiffs — the two California women who initiated this whole lawsuit — said they plan to buy Costco’s rotisserie chicken again. One of them added a caveat that she “cannot rely on Costco’s preservative-related representations for the product unless those representations are accurate and consistent with the product’s ingredients.” Which is a pretty lawyerly way of saying, “I still want my chicken, I just want you to be straight with me about what’s in it.”
And that’s kind of the whole thing in a nutshell — wait, I’m not supposed to say that. But really, that reaction captures what this lawsuit is fundamentally about. It’s not that people think the chicken is bad or unsafe. Nobody is claiming they got sick. The issue is transparency. When you tell consumers something contains no preservatives, and it does contain ingredients that function as preservatives, people feel deceived. Even if they still love the product.
What happens next with the case
The lawsuit is still in its early stages. There’s no ruling yet, and the class hasn’t been certified by the court. That’s an important step — if the court certifies the class, it would officially include all U.S. customers who’ve purchased the rotisserie chicken. The California subclass would cover buyers in that state specifically. Class certification isn’t guaranteed; the plaintiffs will need to demonstrate that the case meets certain legal requirements about commonality and adequacy of representation.
The complaint accuses Costco of violating multiple consumer protection laws in both California and Washington state, where Costco is headquartered. There are also unfair competition claims. If this moves forward and the plaintiffs prevail — or more likely, if a settlement is reached — it could affect how Costco and potentially other retailers market prepared foods. These types of labeling lawsuits have been popping up more frequently across the food industry, from fast food chains to grocery store brands.
Does this actually matter to you?
Look, if you’re someone who grabs a Costco rotisserie chicken every week and doesn’t think twice about it, this lawsuit probably won’t change your routine. Both sodium phosphate and carrageenan are FDA-approved, widely used, and not considered harmful at the levels found in food products. The chicken is still $4.99. It still tastes good. It still feeds a family. None of that has changed.
But if you’re someone who specifically chooses products based on label claims — “no preservatives,” “all natural,” “organic” — this is a useful reminder to check the actual ingredient list, not just the marketing copy. Costco has already pulled the “no preservatives” signage, so at least that particular disconnect has been addressed. Whether the company owes damages for the years it ran those signs is up to the courts now. In the meantime, flip the package over once in a while — that small print is there for a reason, and it usually tells a more complete story than the big sign ever does.
