By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A proposed class-action lawsuit filed in California alleges Costco has misled customers by advertising its rotisserie chickens as containing “no preservatives.” The lawsuit claims Costco uses ingredients like sodium phosphate and carrageenan, which extend shelf life and maintain texture, contradicting the “no preservatives” claim. While these ingredients are approved and considered safe, the plaintiffs argue it is unlawful and misleading advertising. Costco has since removed “no preservatives” references from its labeling and signage, stating the ingredients are used for moisture retention and texture consistency.
Read the original article here
Costco’s beloved $5 rotisserie chicken, a cornerstone of budget-friendly meals for countless families, is now finding itself in the hot seat, facing a lawsuit over its preservative content. At the heart of this legal brewing are two California women who claim they were misled by the advertising, asserting they wouldn’t have purchased the chicken, or would have paid less for it, had they known it contained preservatives. This revelation, centered around ingredients like sodium phosphate and carrageenan, has ignited a passionate debate, with many questioning the lawsuit’s intent and its potential to disrupt a cherished, affordable staple.
The crux of the complaint appears to be Costco’s Kirkland Signature Seasoned Rotisserie chicken being advertised as containing “no preservatives,” while in reality, the company does use common food additives like sodium phosphate and carrageenan. These ingredients, while serving to extend shelf life and maintain a desirable texture, are being interpreted by the plaintiffs as preservatives that should have been disclosed more explicitly. It raises a fascinating point about how consumers interpret labels and what constitutes a “preservative” in the eyes of the law versus everyday understanding, especially when the listed additives are generally considered safe and serve multiple functions, including flavor enhancement.
The sentiment surrounding this lawsuit is, to put it mildly, divided. Many observers are quick to dismiss it as a “cash grab lawsuit,” suggesting the plaintiffs are primarily seeking financial gain through a settlement rather than genuine concern for consumer health or transparency. The fact that Costco has reportedly updated its labeling, coupled with the perceived normalcy of the ingredients in question, fuels this skepticism. The frustration is palpable, with some lamenting what they see as an endless cycle of “concern troll” health scares that distract from more significant public health issues.
A recurring point of contention is the plaintiffs’ stated intention to continue purchasing the rotisserie chicken even after filing the lawsuit. This apparent contradiction fuels the narrative that the lawsuit is less about genuine grievance and more about opportunistic legal maneuvering. The idea that these women would still buy the chicken but simply “cannot rely on Costco’s preservative-related representations” strikes many as disingenuous, reinforcing the perception of a lawsuit driven by a desire for a payout rather than a fundamental objection to the product itself.
There’s a strong undercurrent of defense for Costco and its rotisserie chicken, with many highlighting its role as a significant loss leader and a vital resource for struggling families. The $5 price point is frequently cited as astonishingly low, making the idea of someone expecting a completely preservative-free, gourmet product seem unrealistic. The chicken is often described as a “public service” or a “damn near public service,” suggesting that any perceived imperfections are far outweighed by its affordability and accessibility.
The accusation of false advertising hinges on the specific wording of “no preservatives.” This has led to discussions about the ambiguity of such claims. Is “no preservatives” an absolute guarantee, or is it subject to interpretation, much like other terms in food labeling? The sheer volume of discussion around the “no preservatives” claim, juxtaposed with the ingredient list that’s apparently not hidden, leads many to question how someone genuinely concerned about preservatives could overlook the details.
The lawsuit also brings to light the broader public perception of preservatives. While some additives might technically extend shelf life, the common consumer’s concern often lies with specific types of preservatives like nitrates and nitrites, known for their potential health risks. Ingredients like sodium phosphate, crucial for cellular functions, are a different category altogether. The debate becomes whether common, widely accepted food additives should be categorized under the umbrella of “preservatives” in a way that triggers consumer outrage or legal action.
Furthermore, the context of Costco’s rotisserie chicken is undeniable. It’s a product that has been subject to intense scrutiny and fondness for years. The idea that a cheap, mass-produced roasted chicken, sitting for hours in a warming display, would be completely devoid of ingredients that aid in preservation seems inherently unlikely to some. The plaintiffs’ claims are being met with a dose of reality-check from those who believe consumers should have a more practical understanding of how such products are maintained.
The frustration extends to the media’s portrayal of the story, with some expressing annoyance at sensationalized headlines. While acknowledging that attention-grabbing titles are common, the intensity of some of these headlines, such as “rotisserie chicken gets roasted,” is seen as a sign of the media’s engagement with the drama. The lawsuit, at this stage, is not a certified class action, meaning it’s currently representing only the two initiating plaintiffs, further underscoring the argument that this is a speculative legal endeavor.
Ultimately, this lawsuit raises questions about consumer expectations, the interpretation of food labeling, and the balance between corporate responsibility and opportunistic litigation. While the plaintiffs seek recourse for what they perceive as misleading advertising, a significant portion of the public is rallying behind Costco, viewing the rotisserie chicken as an invaluable affordable meal and the lawsuit as an unnecessary attack on a beloved product. The hope for many is that Costco stands its ground, preserving this affordable option for families and sending a message that frivolous lawsuits will not be tolerated.