It seems almost right that Costco’s rotisserie chicken, which has been $4.99 since the beginning of time, is now the subject of a federal lawsuit. It’s been one of the few stores that has always been reliable, cheap, and comforting in a strange way. But in January, two customers from California sued Kirkland Signature Seasoned Rotisserie Chicken, saying that the company lied when they said it had “no preservatives.” The lawsuit says that the chicken actually has sodium phosphate and carrageenan in it.
The lawyers at Costco aren’t going to take that lying down. Lawyer Charles Sipos said in a motion filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California that the plaintiffs’ claims were “fatally flawed.” His point is based on something more specific than it might seem at first.
The main part of Costco’s defense is about how the rules are defined. According to Sipos, neither carrageenan nor sodium phosphate are preservatives according to FDA rules. Carrageenan, which comes from red seaweed, is often added to processed foods to make them thicker and more stable. Similar things happen with sodium phosphate, which helps meat keep its moisture and texture. That being said, Costco says that neither is acting as a traditional preservative and neither is hidden. Both are clearly labeled on the package as part of the chicken’s seasoning mix.
The plaintiffs, who are represented by Almeida Law Group, have a different point of view. A partner named Wesley M. Griffith said that people should trust a claim that a food has “No Preservatives” when they are choosing food for themselves and their families, and that Costco’s own list of ingredients goes against that marketing. The lawsuit also said that Costco was “systemically cheating customers” out of hundreds of millions of dollars by charging more because of a false claim that the food was clean.
Costco’s counterargument is most interesting when it comes to the last point. The idea that the “No Preservatives” label let Costco charge more was directly pushed back by Sipos. In the motion, he pointed out that the price stayed at $4.99 even after Costco quietly took off the “no preservatives” label after the lawsuit. This is an example of something that goes against the idea that prices are too high. He also said that the complaint didn’t name a single business that sold a whole rotisserie chicken for less than $4.99. It’s an important point. It is hard to see where the extra cost for that label shows up if there is one.
It’s not really about whether Costco is a good or bad actor that makes this case interesting to watch. It’s more about the bigger problem of how the language of food marketing and the language of food science don’t always match up. To a food chemist, “preservative” means a certain thing, but to a shopper scanning a label between the bakery and refrigerated sections, it means a different thing. They don’t always agree with each other. The lawsuit against Costco fits right in that space.
It’s important to note that at least one of the two people who sued said they still planned to buy the chicken. It’s details like that that stick out. Whatever anger led to the lawsuit doesn’t seem to be more important than the allure of a $5 warm, ready-to-eat bird. The case is still going through the court system. For now, people are still buying the chicken.
