Costco fights rotisserie chicken lawsuit

Earlier this year, Costco’s beloved $4.99 rotisserie chicken found itself in a legal broiler after two class-action lawsuits claimed that the ready-to-eat bird isn’t free of food additives or Salmonella contamination.

Now, the legal drama continues as Costco attempts to do damage control — even going so far as to ask that one of the lawsuits be dismissed.

On Jan. 22, a suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, alleging that the Kirkland Signature Seasoned Rotisserie Chicken contains two preservatives — sodium phosphate and carrageenan — despite being marketed as having no preservatives, no artificial flavors or colors, no MSG and no gluten.

“Many consumers prefer products advertised as free of preservatives and reasonably rely on prominent front-of-label and point-of-sale representations when making purchase decisions,” the plaintiffs argued.

At the time, Costco explained in a statement that it uses sodium phosphate and carrageenan “to support moisture retention, texture, and product consistency during cooking,” adding that both preservatives are “approved by food safety authorities.” The big-box warehouse club also said it removed “statements concerning preservatives from the signs and on-line presentations” in an effort to “maintain consistency.”

But per a June 4 memorandum, Costco escalated the matter by filing a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The retailer called the plaintiffs’ argument “fatally flawed,” adding, “Plaintiffs’ own sources contradict it, the regulations of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) discredit it, and the product’s label dispels it.”

Costco also denied claims that shoppers were tricked into paying a premium for its rotisserie chicken because of the “no preservatives” label. The retailer noted that the price of the chicken remained unchanged even after the signage was removed earlier this year.

Costco added that it did not violate any of the laws in question, including Washington’s Consumer Protection Act, California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California’s Unfair Competition Law and California’s False Advertising Law.

According to the memorandum, Costco has asked for the plaintiffs’ suit to be “dismissed with prejudice,” stating that the “amendment is futile because Plaintiffs cannot change the facts to salvage their claims.”

Costco is planning to make its request at an August 13 hearing in San Diego.