Costco Chicken Lawsuit: Preservatives in Rotisserie Chicken

Few things spark more debate in the grocery aisle than what’s actually in the food we buy. But a class action lawsuit filed in January 2026 alleges the chicken contains sodium phosphate and carrageenan—ingredients the suit argues function as preservatives, and here’s what the case means for consumers who trusted that label.

Lawsuit filed: January 2026 · Number of plaintiffs: 2 · Costco chicken price: $4.99 · Alleged preservatives: sodium phosphate, carrageenan · Costco removed “no preservatives” labels: February 2026

Five key facts about the case paint a clear picture of the dispute.

Does Costco put preservatives in their chicken?

The short answer is yes—if you accept the lawsuit’s definition. Costco’s Kirkland Signature Seasoned Rotisserie Chicken contains sodium phosphate and carrageenan, two additives that the class action argues function as preservatives. The company marketed the chicken with prominent “no preservatives” signage both in-store and online until February 2026 (ClassAction.org (legal news tracker)).

What does “no preservatives” mean on the label?

Costco’s in-store display labels and product descriptions explicitly stated the chicken was free of “preservatives, artificial flavors, artificial colors, MSG, and gluten” (WRAL News (regional news outlet)). The lawsuit claims this gave shoppers the impression that no synthetic additives were used to maintain taste, texture, or shelf life. The complaint argues that sodium phosphate and carrageenan do exactly that—extending the product’s palatability even if they are classified legally as processing aids.

Why did Costco remove the “no preservatives” claim?

According to a company statement reported by WRAL News (regional news outlet), Costco voluntarily removed “preservatives” and related statements from signage and online presentations in February 2026 “to maintain consistency in labeling.” The move came just weeks after the lawsuit was filed, but Costco did not acknowledge wrongdoing. The implication: the company recognized the marketing was vulnerable, even if it disputes the legal claim.

What preservatives are in Costco rotisserie chicken according to the lawsuit?

Two ingredients are at the center of the dispute: sodium phosphate and carrageenan. Both are common in processed foods, but the lawsuit argues they serve a preservative function that contradicts Costco’s advertising.

What is sodium phosphate?

Sodium phosphate is a salt used to enhance moisture retention and improve texture in meat products. The USDA allows it as a “moisture enhancer” and it is generally recognized as safe (GRAS) by the FDA (Almeida Law Group (plaintiffs’ law firm)). The lawsuit contends that its role in keeping the chicken moist over time qualifies as a preservative effect, because it slows spoilage by binding water molecules.

What is carrageenan?

Carrageenan is a thickener and stabilizer derived from red seaweed. It is used in many dairy and meat products to improve mouthfeel and prevent separation. The FDA classifies carrageenan as GRAS, but some consumer groups have raised concerns about potential inflammation (ClassAction.org). The plaintiffs argue carrageenan acts as a preservative because it prevents the chicken from becoming unappealingly slimy during storage.

Are these ingredients considered preservatives by the FDA?

This is the central legal question. The FDA defines a preservative as “any substance that is added to food to prevent or retard deterioration.” Both sodium phosphate and carrageenan have functional roles that could fit that definition, but they are typically labeled as “processing aids” or “stabilizers” rather than preservatives. The lawsuit will test whether the common understanding of “preservative” among shoppers—anything that keeps food fresh longer—matches the regulatory classification.

Why is Costco being sued over its chickens?

Two women from Southern California filed the class action on January 22, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (Almeida Law Group (plaintiffs’ firm)). The case is captioned Johnston et al. v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, et al. (ClassAction.org).

Who filed the lawsuit?

The named plaintiffs are two California consumers who purchased the rotisserie chicken believing it was free of preservatives (Almeida Law Group). They seek to represent all U.S. consumers who bought the product, with a separate California subclass for those covered by state consumer protection laws.

What is the basis of the false advertising claim?

The complaint asserts claims under the Washington Consumer Protection Act, California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California Unfair Competition Law, and California False Advertising Law (Almeida Law Group (plaintiffs’ firm)). The core argument: Costco’s “no preservatives” promise was materially misleading because the chicken contains additives that preserve freshness.

What relief are the plaintiffs seeking?

The lawsuit requests injunctive relief to stop the advertising, restitution of money spent on the chicken, damages, and disgorgement of profits (Almeida Law Group). The total financial exposure for Costco could be substantial if the class is certified and covers millions of chickens sold each year.

Is Costco chicken safe to eat?

Yes—according to food safety experts and regulatory agencies. The lawsuit does not claim the chicken is unsafe or contaminated; it only challenges the marketing label.

What do health experts say about sodium phosphate and carrageenan?

Both ingredients are FDA-approved and widely used across the food industry. Sodium phosphate in moderate amounts is considered safe for the general population, though individuals with kidney disease may need to monitor phosphate intake. Carrageenan has been the subject of debate for decades, but major health bodies including the FDA and the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives maintain it is safe at typical consumption levels (FDA (food additive guidance)). The McGill University Office for Science and Society described the lawsuit as “frivolous” from a scientific perspective, noting the ingredients are not preservatives in the conventional sense (McGill University Office for Science and Society (academic institution)).

Are rotisserie chickens generally considered healthy?

Rotisserie chicken is a lean protein source, but it can be high in sodium due to brining or injection. Costco’s version contains added sodium phosphate, which contributes to the total salt content. For most consumers, moderate consumption poses no health concern.

Should consumers be concerned about the lawsuit?

The lawsuit is about labeling accuracy, not food safety. If you liked the taste and price of Costco’s chicken, the ingredients haven’t changed—only the marketing has been corrected. The real concern is about transparency: what does “no preservatives” really mean when regulators and consumers disagree on the definition?

What is the status of the Costco chicken lawsuit?

As of early 2026, the case is in its early stages. No court ruling on class certification has been made, and no settlement has been announced.

Has Costco responded to the lawsuit?

Costco has not filed a substantive response yet, but the company’s decision to remove the “no preservatives” language suggests it is taking the allegations seriously. A statement to CBC News said the change was made “to maintain consistency” across labeling (CBC News (Canadian public broadcaster)).

What changes has Costco made to its labeling?

Starting in February 2026, Costco removed all “no preservatives” references from in-store signage, product labels, and online listings. The chicken now appears without that claim, though the recipe remains the same (WRAL News).

Are there other similar lawsuits against Costco?

Costco has faced class actions before over other labeling issues, including claims about “organic” ingredients and “natural” claims. This case stands out because it challenges a specific phrase (“no preservatives”) that is commonly used across the food industry.

Timeline of key events

• January 22, 2026: Lawsuit filed in Southern California (Almeida Law Group)
• February 10, 2026: Costco removes “no preservatives” references (WRAL News)

Clarity section

Confirmed facts

• Costco used sodium phosphate and carrageenan in its rotisserie chicken (Almeida Law Group)
• Costco advertised “no preservatives” until February 2026 (ClassAction.org)
• Costco removed the claim after the lawsuit was filed (WRAL News)
• The lawsuit was filed by two California consumers (Almeida Law Group)
• Both additives are FDA-approved for food use (FDA)

What’s unclear

• Whether sodium phosphate and carrageenan legally qualify as preservatives under FDA guidelines
• The outcome of the lawsuit
• Whether the class will be certified
• Whether other retailers will face similar scrutiny over “no preservatives” claims
• No settlement announced; case proceeds

Quotes from the parties

“This lawsuit is frivolous from a scientific standpoint. Sodium phosphate and carrageenan are not preservatives in the sense that most people think—they’re processing aids.”

McGill University Office for Science and Society (academic institution)

“Costco removed the ‘no preservatives’ references from signage and online presentations to maintain consistency in labeling.”

CBC News (Canadian public broadcaster)

“The complaint alleges that Costco’s marketing led consumers to believe the chicken was free of synthetic additives that preserve taste, texture, or shelf life.”

ClassAction.org (legal news tracker)

Summary

The Costco rotisserie chicken lawsuit is a prism for a broader tension in food labeling: what companies mean by “no preservatives” and what consumers hear are often two different things. For shoppers who value transparency, the takeaway is to look beyond front-of-package claims and check the ingredient list. For Costco, the legal risk is real—if the court broadens the consumer meaning of “preservative,” every grocery aisle with a similar promise may need a rewrite. And for the rest of the food industry, the writing is on the wall: say what you mean, or be prepared to defend it in court.

Frequently asked questions