Evil Corporations · Corporate Accountability Project · Published January 2026
Consumer Fraud · Food Labeling · Class Action
Costco Told Millions Their Chicken Had No Preservatives. It Had Two.
While shoppers trusted the “No Preservatives” signs plastered across Costco’s stores and website, the company’s Kirkland Signature Rotisserie Chicken contained sodium phosphate and carrageenan, two additives that preserve texture and extend shelf life. A federal class action filed in January 2026 says that’s not a fine-print oversight. It’s fraud.
● HIGH SEVERITY — Nationwide Consumer Class Action — Hundreds of Thousands to Millions of Affected Shoppers
TL;DR
Costco has spent years putting “No Preservatives” signs directly above its bestselling rotisserie chicken while knowingly adding sodium phosphate and carrageenan to that same product. Both additives function as preservatives. Both extend shelf life. Costco knew this. Millions of shoppers, many of whom specifically avoid preservatives for health or dietary reasons, paid for a product under false pretenses. A federal class action filed in the Southern District of California in January 2026 calls out the deception directly: Costco cheated customers out of tens, possibly hundreds of millions of dollars by exploiting the trust people place in clear, prominent product claims.
Millions of people made food choices based on a lie. Demand that Costco end the deception and make it right.
Key Numbers
$5M+
Minimum amount in controversy
2
Hidden preservatives in the chicken
MILLIONS
Estimated class members nationwide
$4.99
Price per chicken (at time of purchase)
4
Consumer protection laws violated
2024
Earliest confirmed purchase date in complaint
Core Allegations
What Costco did · 7 points
▼
| 01 | Costco prominently advertised its Kirkland Signature Seasoned Rotisserie Chicken as containing “no preservatives” on large in-store signs and its official website, without any qualifying language. | high |
| 02 | Despite the “No Preservatives” claims, the Rotisserie Chicken contains sodium phosphate and carrageenan, two additives that both function as preservatives by extending shelf life, preserving texture, and retarding spoilage. | high |
| 03 | Sodium phosphate buffers pH, chelates metal ions, and reduces fat oxidation, directly inhibiting microbial growth and spoilage; it also stabilizes proteins and emulsions to maintain texture over time. | high |
| 04 | Carrageenan preserves food texture and extends shelf life, a function Costco did not disclose to consumers despite advertising the product as preservative free. | high |
| 05 | Costco knew or should have known that its “No Preservatives” representations were false, given its industry expertise and awareness of consumer trends around clean-label and preservative-free food products. | high |
| 06 | The company placed the deceptive claims on prominent signs at the point of sale and on its website at the point of purchase, specifically positioning them where consumers make buying decisions. | med |
| 07 | Any mention of the actual ingredients appeared only in small print on the back of the packaging, with no explanation of their preservative functions, making discovery of the deception effectively impossible at the point of sale. | high |
Profit Over People
Revenue prioritized over honesty · 5 points
▼
| 01 | Costco’s rotisserie chicken is one of its most well-known and highest-volume products. Advertising it as preservative-free was a deliberate sales strategy targeting health-conscious consumers who pay premium attention to ingredient labels. | high |
| 02 | The “No Preservatives” claim influenced purchasing decisions: both named plaintiffs stated they would not have bought the chicken at all had they known it contained preservatives. | high |
| 03 | The complaint alleges Costco was unjustly enriched by collecting the full purchase price, and in some cases a price premium, from consumers who were misled about the product’s actual composition. | high |
| 04 | Adding preservatives reduces food waste and extends the sellable life of the product, generating financial benefit for Costco at the direct expense of consumer trust and informed choice. | med |
| 05 | Plaintiffs allege total harm to the class could reach hundreds of millions of dollars, reflecting the scale at which Costco profited from the false advertising across its nationwide warehouse network. | high |
Consumer Health and Informed Choice
Who was harmed and how · 5 points
▼
| 01 | Consumers who specifically seek preservative-free food for health reasons, dietary restrictions, or personal values were directly deceived by Costco’s claims, making choices they would not have made with accurate information. | high |
| 02 | Carrageenan is a controversial food additive with ongoing consumer and scientific debate about its health effects; consumers who avoid it were unknowingly consuming it while trusting Costco’s preservative-free advertising. | med |
| 03 | Sodium phosphate is a recognized food preservative by FDA definition; its inclusion in a product advertised as preservative-free is a direct contradiction of a regulatory standard that exists specifically to inform consumers. | high |
| 04 | Research cited in the complaint shows that consumers increasingly use their spending power to choose products free from potentially harmful additives, meaning Costco exploited a documented and genuine health-driven consumer preference. | med |
| 05 | Because the deceptive claim appeared at the front of the sale display rather than on back-label ingredient lists, consumers had no practical opportunity to discover the truth before purchase without already suspecting the label was false. | high |
Corporate Accountability Failures
No correction, no disclosure, no accountability · 4 points
▼
| 01 | Despite possessing superior knowledge about the preservative functions of the Rotisserie Chicken’s added ingredients, Costco never voluntarily corrected its advertising or disclosed the presence and function of sodium phosphate and carrageenan. | high |
| 02 | The complaint alleges Costco’s conduct was “malicious, fraudulent, and wanton,” in that it intentionally and knowingly provided false information for its own financial benefit at consumers’ expense. | high |
| 03 | No regulatory action had forced Costco to correct the labeling before this class action was filed. The lawsuit represents private enforcement of consumer protection standards that government agencies had not yet acted to enforce. | med |
| 04 | Plaintiffs did not discover the false nature of Costco’s representations until January 2026. The deception persisted for at least the entire class period without any corrective action from the company. | med |
The Clean-Label Marketing Machine
Exploiting consumer trust in wellness branding · 4 points
▼
| 01 | Costco’s “No Preservatives” claim was part of a suite of clean-label marketing attributes prominently displayed at the point of sale, including “Gluten Free,” “MSG Free,” and “No Artificial Flavors,” all designed to signal health-conscious sourcing. | high |
| 02 | The in-store signage used large, prominent formatting to ensure consumers absorbed the clean-label claims before approaching the purchase decision, leveraging the persuasive power of conspicuous point-of-sale advertising. | med |
| 03 | By placing the claims “without any qualifying language,” Costco created a flat, categorical impression that its product was fully and completely preservative-free, with no exceptions or nuance. | high |
| 04 | The clean-label market is a documented and growing consumer segment. Costco’s false claims directly targeted this group, capturing the trust of consumers who had moved toward preservative-free diets. | med |
This Is the System Working as Intended
Structural critique · 4 points
▼
| 01 | The FDA’s definition of a preservative as any ingredient that “tends to prevent or retard deterioration” is clear and public. Costco’s use of sodium phosphate and carrageenan falls squarely within that definition, yet the company advertised the opposite. | high |
| 02 | The gap between what a company puts in small-print ingredient lists and what it displays in large-print marketing is a structural feature of food labeling that systematically advantages sellers over buyers. | high |
| 03 | Costco’s case illustrates that even household-name retailers with strong reputations for consumer value will exploit labeling ambiguity when there is financial incentive to do so and when self-correction is not required. | med |
| 04 | Private class actions remain one of the only functional enforcement mechanisms for false food labeling when regulatory agencies have not acted, placing the burden of corporate accountability on consumers and their lawyers rather than on the state. | med |
Timeline of Events
How the Deception Unfolded
Dec 9, 2024
Plaintiff Bianca Johnston visits a Costco in Victorville, California. She observes in-store signage stating the Rotisserie Chicken has “no preservatives” and purchases a chicken in reliance on that claim.
Feb 17, 2025
Plaintiff Anatasia Chernov visits a Costco in San Marcos, California. She purchases two rotisserie chickens based on the same “No Preservatives” representations displayed at the store.
After Purchase
Both plaintiffs independently discover that the Rotisserie Chicken contains sodium phosphate and carrageenan, two additives that function as preservatives, directly contradicting Costco’s in-store and online claims.
January 2026
Plaintiffs discover the false nature of Costco’s representations and file a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of California (Case No. 3:26-cv-00403).
Jan 22, 2026
Class action complaint filed by Almeida Law Group on behalf of Johnston, Chernov, and all similarly situated consumers nationwide, seeking actual damages, treble damages, restitution, disgorgement, and injunctive relief.
Direct Quotes from the Legal Record
In Their Own Words
Quote 1
The Scale of the Fraud
Core Allegations
“Costco Wholesale Corporation has systemically cheated customers out of tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars by falsely advertising its Kirkland Signature Seasoned Rotisserie Chicken as containing ‘no preservatives.'”
The opening paragraph of the complaint makes the scale of the alleged harm explicit: this is not a labeling technicality. It is a systematic, nationwide fraud affecting tens of millions of dollars.
Quote 2
The Hidden Ingredients
Core Allegations
“The Rotisserie Chicken is made with two added preservatives, sodium phosphate and carrageenan.”
The complaint names both additives directly and unambiguously. This is not a gray area about ingredient classification. These are additives with documented preservative functions.
Quote 3
How Sodium Phosphate Functions
Consumer Health
“Sodium phosphate functions as a chemical preservative in foods because it buffers and controls pH, chelates metal ions, and reduces fat oxidation, which collectively inhibit or retard microbial growth and spoilage.”
The complaint does not rely on opinion. It cites the specific biochemical mechanisms by which sodium phosphate preserves food, meeting the FDA’s definition of a preservative directly.
Quote 4
The Deceptive Net Impression
Clean-Label Marketing Machine
“Costco makes the ‘No Preservatives’ Representations without any qualifying language.”
No asterisks. No fine print. No “may contain” caveats. The claim was absolute and unqualified, making it maximally deceptive to any reasonable consumer reading it.
Quote 5
Consumers Could Not Have Known
Accountability Failures
“Consumers, including Plaintiffs, make purchasing decisions based on whether a food product is ‘preservative free,’ but they are unable to determine prior to purchase that the Rotisserie Chicken contains added preservatives because they reasonably rely on Costco’s prominent ‘No Preservatives’ Representations.”
This passage explains why the fine-print ingredient list is not a sufficient disclosure. Consumers are entitled to trust prominent front-of-label marketing claims, not forced to decode back-label ingredient chemistry to verify them.
Quote 6
Costco Knew It Was Deceiving People
Accountability Failures
“Costco knew or should have known that this information is material to reasonable consumers, including Plaintiff and members of the Classes, in making their purchasing decisions, given Costco’s industry expertise and offering of products and consumer trends within the industry, as described above, yet it continues to pervasively advertise the Rotisserie Chicken in the alleged manner.”
The complaint draws a direct line between Costco’s industry knowledge and its continued deception, making clear this was not ignorance but deliberate disregard for consumer rights.
Quote 7
Intentional and Malicious
Accountability Failures
“Costco’s conduct was malicious, fraudulent, and wanton in that it intentionally and knowingly provided false and misleading information to Plaintiffs and the California Subclass for Costco’s own benefit to the detriment of Plaintiffs and the California Subclass.”
The complaint uses the strongest available legal language. This is not negligence or oversight. It is alleged to be an intentional act of deception for financial gain.
Quote 8
Johnston Would Not Have Bought It
Core Allegations
“Had Ms. Johnston known before purchasing that the Rotisserie Chicken contained the preservatives sodium phosphate and carrageenan, Ms. Johnston would not have purchased the Rotisserie Chicken.”
This is not about a partial refund. This is about a product people never would have bought. The harm is the purchase itself, driven entirely by false advertising.
Commentary
Questions and Answers
?
What exactly did Costco do wrong?
▼
Costco advertised its Kirkland Signature Rotisserie Chicken as containing “no preservatives” using large, prominent in-store signs and its official website. In fact, the chicken contained two additives (sodium phosphate and carrageenan) that both function as food preservatives by extending shelf life and retarding spoilage. Costco knew what was in the product. It chose to advertise the opposite. That is false advertising.
?
Is this lawsuit legitimate, or just a technicality?
▼
This is a substantive consumer protection case, not a technicality. The FDA defines a preservative as any ingredient added to food that tends to prevent or retard deterioration. Sodium phosphate meets that definition by controlling pH and inhibiting microbial growth. Carrageenan meets it by preserving texture and extending shelf life. Costco had a choice: label the chicken accurately or change its ingredients. It did neither. The claim was categorical and unqualified. That is the legal and ethical problem.
?
Why does it matter if there are preservatives in the chicken?
▼
For millions of consumers, ingredient transparency is not a preference. It is a priority. People avoid preservatives for documented health reasons, dietary restrictions, personal values, or to protect children and family members with sensitivities. When a company uses the promise of clean-label food to sell its product, it is taking advantage of a genuine and growing consumer need. Costco captured the trust and purchasing decisions of those consumers under false pretenses. The harm is real even if it is not always visible on a plate.
?
Wasn’t the ingredient list on the back of the package?
▼
Yes, the ingredients were listed in small print on the back label. But the complaint makes a critical point: consumers reasonably weigh prominent front-of-label and point-of-sale claims more heavily than back-label fine print. Research supports this. When a large sign at the display case says “No Preservatives,” that is the representation consumers act on. The back-label listing of sodium phosphate and carrageenan does not explain that these are preservatives. A consumer has no reason to research the biochemistry of every listed ingredient when the front-facing claim already told them the answer.
?
How many people are affected?
▼
The complaint alleges the class includes hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people across the United States who purchased the Rotisserie Chicken during the class period. The potential financial harm to the class is described as tens, possibly hundreds, of millions of dollars. These numbers reflect the sheer scale of Costco’s rotisserie chicken business. The company sells millions of these chickens every year across its nationwide warehouse network.
?
Are sodium phosphate and carrageenan dangerous?
▼
The lawsuit is not primarily about whether these specific additives cause health harm. It is about the right to know what is in your food and to make an informed choice. That said, carrageenan in particular is a subject of ongoing consumer concern and scientific debate regarding inflammation and digestive health. Regardless of health outcomes, consumers have a fundamental right to accurate information about the products they buy. Denying that right is wrong, and it is unlawful under multiple state and federal consumer protection frameworks.
?
Why is this case being filed now, in 2026?
▼
Plaintiffs state they discovered the false nature of Costco’s representations in January 2026 and filed promptly. The complaint invokes fraudulent concealment to toll the statute of limitations, arguing that Costco’s prominent deception prevented earlier discovery. This is how these cases often work: corporate deception by its nature delays detection. Consumers rely on the company’s own marketing. They have no reason to suspect a categorical label claim is false unless and until something prompts a closer look.
?
What can I do to prevent this from happening again?
▼
Several things. First, if you purchased Costco’s Kirkland Signature Rotisserie Chicken and relied on the “No Preservatives” claims, you may be a class member with a right to participate in this litigation. Look up the case (Johnston et al. v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, Case No. 3:26-cv-00403) for updates. Second, report false food labeling to the FDA via SafetyReporting.hhs.gov and to your state attorney general. Third, use your purchasing power: when companies face economic consequences for deceptive labeling, it changes behavior faster than legal action alone. And fourth, support stronger food labeling laws. The current framework allows this kind of deception to persist. It should not.
?
What does Costco stand to lose if the lawsuit succeeds?
▼
The complaint seeks actual damages, treble damages under the Washington Consumer Protection Act, restitution of the full purchase price or price premium paid by each class member, disgorgement of unjust enrichment, punitive or exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, injunctive relief requiring Costco to stop the false advertising, and declaratory relief. In practical terms, a successful outcome could require Costco to refund millions of consumers and permanently change its Rotisserie Chicken advertising. The reputational damage to the Kirkland Signature brand, built on trust and value, would also be significant.
💡 Explore Corporate Misconduct by Category
Corporations harm people every day — from wage theft to pollution. Learn more by exploring key areas of injustice.
- 💀 Product Safety Violations — When companies risk lives for profit.
- 🌿 Environmental Violations — Pollution, ecological collapse, and unchecked greed.
- 💼 Labor Exploitation — Wage theft, worker abuse, and unsafe conditions.
- 🛡️ Data Breaches & Privacy Abuses — Misuse and mishandling of personal information.
- 💵 Financial Fraud & Corruption — Lies, scams, and executive impunity.
