The golden-brown rotisserie chickens sitting under heat lamps at the back of every Costco warehouse have become as iconic as the retailer's $1.50 hot dog combo. But now, that famous $4.99 bird is causing some serious trouble for the company.
Two California shoppers, Bianca Johnston and Anatasia Chernov, filed a class-action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on January 22. Their complaint takes aim at what they say is false advertising around one specific claim: that the chickens contain no preservatives.
The problem, according to the lawsuit, is that Costco's own ingredient list tells a different story. Right there on the packaging are two additives—sodium phosphate and carrageenan—that the plaintiffs argue "perform preservative functions." Yet the company has marketed the product as preservative-free through in-store signage and online listings.
The lawsuit alleges Costco "has systemically cheated customers out of tens—if not hundreds—of millions of dollars by falsely advertising" the rotisserie chicken "as containing 'no preservatives.'" That's no small claim when you consider the scale of sales. The retailer moves more than 100 million of these chickens every year, a staggering number that speaks to just how popular the product has become.
The Heart of the Dispute
At the center of this legal fight is a question about what shoppers see versus what they get. The lawsuit argues that "Consumers reasonably place greater weight on clear, conspicuous statements like 'No Preservatives' than on smaller print disclosures elsewhere on a product's packaging." In other words, when people see big, bold claims on signs and labels, that's what sticks in their minds—not the fine print ingredient list on the back.
Both Johnston and Chernov say they prefer buying food without preservatives when they can. They claim they purchased Costco's rotisserie chicken believing it was actually preservative-free, based on how the company marketed it.
The complaint argues that shoppers like them "do not expect a product advertised as 'preservative free' to contain added ingredients that act as preservatives." As long as Costco keeps marketing the chicken this way, the lawsuit claims, customers "will be unable to make informed decisions" about whether to buy it and "unable to evaluate the different prices between Costco's Rotisserie Chicken and competitors' products."
Wesley Griffith, the attorney representing the plaintiffs, didn't mince words when speaking to Fox Business. "Costco's own ingredient list contradicts its marketing," he said. "Our lawsuit seeks to hold Costco accountable for deceiving its customers."
A Closer Look at the Ingredients
The two additives in question—sodium phosphate and carrageenan—are commonly found in processed foods. Both are approved by food safety authorities and widely used across the food industry.
Costco responded to questions about the lawsuit with a statement explaining their position. The company said it uses carrageenan and sodium phosphate "to support moisture retention, texture, and product consistency during cooking." They emphasized that "Both ingredients are approved by food safety authorities."
The retailer also revealed it has made changes to address the confusion. "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," the company stated.
That's an interesting detail. Apparently, the "No Preservatives" claim did appear on older plastic containers that Costco used to use for the chickens. When the company switched to the plastic bags currently in use, that specific claim seems to have disappeared from the packaging itself. The front of today's bags notes the chicken contains "No hormones or added steroids," while the back lists several things it doesn't have: "No MSG, gluten, Artificial Flavors or Colors." But the preservatives claim? That's gone from the bags.
The issue, according to the lawsuit, is that in-store signs and online product listings continued to tout the preservative-free angle even after the packaging changed.
The Backstory on Costco's Famous Chicken
The rotisserie chicken program at Costco has a pretty interesting history. It all started back in 1995 when a couple of employees at a store in Montreal, Canada, decided to give it a try. The idea caught on, and now these chickens are a staple at every Costco warehouse.
What makes them particularly noteworthy is the price. That $4.99 price tag has held steady for years, even as costs for everything else have climbed. It's become almost legendary among regular Costco shoppers, right up there with the $1.50 hot dog and soda combo that hasn't budged since 1985.
The company sells north of 100 million rotisserie chickens annually. That's a lot of dinner tables covered, a lot of chicken salad made, and a lot of reasons for people to keep coming back to the warehouse.
The chickens weigh in at roughly three pounds each, making them a practical choice for families looking for an easy, affordable meal. They're also versatile—you can eat them straight, shred the meat for tacos or sandwiches, or toss it into soup.
This Isn't the First Legal Issue
Interestingly, this isn't the first time Costco's rotisserie chickens have ended up in court. Back in 2022, the company faced a different lawsuit, that one focused on alleged animal welfare violations. These birds have become such a massive part of Costco's business that they've attracted attention from multiple angles.
The current lawsuit represents a different kind of challenge. It's not about how the chickens are raised, but about how they're marketed and whether customers are getting the full picture when they make purchasing decisions.
Customer Reaction: Does Anyone Care?
Here's where things get really interesting. Despite the serious allegations in the lawsuit, many Costco shoppers don't seem particularly bothered. One comment on a Reddit thread discussing the case summed up the prevailing attitude: "That chicken is 5 bucks. I don't care."
That reaction speaks volumes about the value proposition Costco has created with this product. For a lot of people, the combination of price, convenience, and taste outweighs concerns about additives or preservatives. Whether that sentiment will hold up if the lawsuit gains more traction remains to be seen.
What Happens Next
The lawsuit is seeking class-action status, which means if it's granted, it could potentially represent thousands or even millions of Costco customers who bought the rotisserie chicken believing it was preservative-free. The plaintiffs are aiming to hold Costco accountable for what they characterize as systematic deception.
For its part, Costco has already started making changes by removing preservative-related claims from signage and online listings. Whether that's enough to satisfy the court—or the plaintiffs—is another question entirely.
The case will likely hinge on technical questions about what constitutes a preservative, how reasonable consumers interpret marketing claims, and whether the presence of sodium phosphate and carrageenan in the ingredient list was sufficiently disclosed to shoppers.
Food labeling disputes like this one are becoming increasingly common as consumers pay more attention to what's in their food. People want to know what they're eating, and they're taking companies to task when they feel misled. The outcome of this case could have implications beyond just Costco, potentially affecting how other retailers market their prepared foods.
For now, those rotisserie chickens keep spinning on their rotisserie spits, the heat lamps keep them warm, and shoppers keep loading them into their carts. Whether that continues unchanged or whether this lawsuit forces bigger changes in how Costco does business is something only time will tell.
One thing's certain: at $4.99 a pop and with hundreds of millions sold each year, there's a lot at stake—both for the company and for customers who've made that chicken a regular part of their shopping routine.
