Costco’s lawsuit response to the preservatives claim is blunt. It says sodium phosphate and carrageenan are seasoning ingredients, not preservatives. The company wants the case dismissed with prejudice.
The fight centers on Kirkland Signature Seasoned Rotisserie Chicken. Costco sold more than 157 million of them worldwide in 2025. That is a lot of birds riding on one label dispute.
This guide covers Costco’s arguments, the plaintiffs’ reply, and the court schedule. You’ll see who could qualify and what payout is realistic. We checked court records and news reports through September 20, 2026.
No settlement exists yet, so nobody can file a claim today. Here is where the case stands.
What Is Costco’s Lawsuit Response to the Preservatives Claim?
Costco’s response is a motion to dismiss, filed on June 4, 2026.
Costco’s attorney, Charles Sipos, called the plaintiffs’ theory “fatally flawed.” The company says the plaintiffs misread both the rules and the label.
The motion makes four main arguments. Each one targets a different weak spot in the complaint.
- The FDA does not define sodium phosphate or carrageenan as preservatives.
- The label lists both as part of the chicken’s seasoning.
- The price never changed, so no price premium existed.
- Amending the complaint again would be futile.
Costco says it uses both ingredients for moisture retention, texture, and consistency during cooking. It adds that food safety authorities have approved both.
Costco denies violating any consumer protection, false advertising, or unfair competition law. No settlement has been reported.
| Quick Facts | Info |
|---|---|
| Case | Johnston v. Costco Wholesale Corporation |
| Court | U.S. District Court, Southern District of California |
| Case number | 3:26-cv-00403 |
| Motion filed | June 4, 2026 |
| What Costco wants | Dismissal with prejudice |
What Does Costco’s Motion to Dismiss Ask the Court to Do?
A motion to dismiss asks a judge to end a case before evidence is exchanged.
The judge assumes the plaintiffs’ facts are true at this stage. The only question is whether those facts add up to a legal claim.
Costco aimed its motion at the amended complaint. It asks for dismissal with prejudice, which means no second try. Costco says the plaintiffs cannot change the facts to save their claims.
Think of it as a referee stopping a fight in round one. Costco wants the bell to ring before the plaintiffs land a punch.
The laws in play matter here. The plaintiffs cite Washington’s Consumer Protection Act and California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act. They also cite California’s Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law.
| Costco’s Request | Stated Reason |
|---|---|
| Dismiss false advertising claims | Label discloses the ingredients; FDA rules do not call them preservatives |
| Dismiss economic injury claims | Price stayed at $4.99 after signs came down |
| Dismiss request to stop the advertising | Costco says the disputed signs are already gone |
| Block any refiling | Amendment would be futile |
What Is in Costco’s Rotisserie Chicken? The Ingredients List
Costco says the chicken has three basic ingredients: whole chicken, water, and a seasoning mix.
The seasoning mix is where the fight lives. Costco’s filing breaks it down into eight parts.
- Salt
- Sodium phosphate
- Modified food starch (potato, tapioca)
- Potato dextrin
- Carrageenan
- Sugar
- Dextrose
- Spice extractives
Two of those eight ingredients sit at the center of the case. The plaintiffs say the ingredients appear only in small print on the back of the label. Costco says the label plainly ties them to the seasoning.
The complaint says sodium phosphate buffers pH and inhibits microbial growth. Costco answers that carrageenan is a thickener under FDA rules.
| Ingredient | Plaintiffs Say | Costco Says |
|---|---|---|
| Sodium phosphate | Slows spoilage and stabilizes proteins | Supports moisture and texture |
| Carrageenan | Preserves texture and shelf life | Thickens and stabilizes |
Key Takeaway: Costco’s answer rests on FDA classifications, label disclosure, and the claim that no shopper overpaid.
Is Sodium Phosphate a Preservative?
Whether sodium phosphate is a preservative is the central dispute in this case.
Healthline says it extends shelf life, improves texture, and helps meat retain moisture. That overlap is why the argument exists. One ingredient can do several jobs at once.
The complaint adds that sodium phosphate controls pH and slows fat oxidation. The plaintiffs say those effects amount to a preservative function.
Costco says neither ingredient appears among substances commonly identified as preservatives. It says it uses sodium phosphate for moisture, texture, and consistency.
Safety is a separate question. The FDA considers sodium phosphate generally safe for healthy people. It may pose risks for people with kidney disease. The lawsuit is about labeling, not safety.
| Side | Position on Sodium Phosphate |
|---|---|
| Plaintiffs | Works as a chemical preservative |
| Costco | Seasoning ingredient for moisture and texture |
| FDA safety view | Generally safe for healthy people |
Is Carrageenan a Preservative?
Carrageenan is a seaweed-derived thickener, and Costco says FDA rules treat it that way.
It comes from red seaweed and thickens and stabilizes food. Costco says the FDA lists it as an emulsifier, stabilizer, or thickener.
The plaintiffs say carrageenan preserves food texture and extends shelf life. They argue that listing it does not cure a broader “no preservatives” claim.
Ingredients can wear two hats. Vinegar seasons a salad and pickles a cucumber. The court must decide which hat carrageenan wears in this chicken.
The FDA considers food-grade carrageenan safe. Some studies link carrageenan to digestive problems. Those health debates sit outside the lawsuit’s claims.
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| Source | Red seaweed |
| Common role | Thickener and stabilizer |
| Plaintiffs’ label for it | Preservative by function |
| Costco’s label for it | Seasoning ingredient |
Why Did Costco Remove the No Preservatives Signs?
Costco says it removed the statements to keep its signs and labels consistent.
Costco told USA Today it pulled the signage shortly after the January filing. The change covered warehouse signs and online listings.
The plaintiffs read the move differently. Attorney Wesley M. Griffith called it confirmation of the core legal theory. In his view, a true claim would not vanish overnight.
Costco does not treat removal as an admission. It uses the change to argue that the chicken’s price never moved.
Removal stops future exposure. It does not erase claims tied to past purchases. That is why both sides keep pointing to the same event.
| Detail | Info |
|---|---|
| Before the lawsuit | Signs and online listings said “No Preservatives” |
| After the lawsuit | Preservative statements removed |
| Costco’s stated reason | Consistency between labels and signs |
| Plaintiffs’ reading | Proof the claim was false |
Key Takeaway: Costco removed the claim but denies it was false, and both sides use that fact.
Does the $4.99 Price Disprove the Price Premium Claim?
Costco says the unchanged $4.99 price proves shoppers never paid a premium.
A price premium claim says buyers paid extra because of a label. Courts usually want some proof of that extra cost.
Sipos wrote that the complaint names no competitor selling a whole rotisserie chicken for less than $4.99. Costco adds that the price stayed put after the signs came down.
The plaintiffs say they would not have bought the chicken, or would have paid less. They claim Costco cheated shoppers out of tens, possibly hundreds, of millions of dollars.
The plaintiffs’ theory needs a comparison point. A cheaper, similar chicken would help them. Costco says that comparison does not exist in the complaint.
| Issue | Costco | Plaintiffs |
|---|---|---|
| Price paid | $4.99 before and after | Paid more, or would not have bought |
| Competitors | None named below $4.99 | Clean label claims carry value |
| Sign removal | Price did not change | Removal confirms falsity |
How Did the Plaintiffs Respond to Costco’s Motion?
The plaintiffs told the court that consumer expectations matter more than federal regulations.
Law360 covered their opposition on June 23, 2026. The filing answers Costco’s FDA argument head on.
They argue many shoppers prefer preservative-free products and trust prominent signs. The complaint says the signs created a net impression of no added preservatives. Small print on the back, they say, cannot undo that impression.
Almeida Law Group represents the plaintiffs, led by California partner Wesley M. Griffith. The named plaintiffs are Bianca Johnston of Big Bear and Anatasia Chernov of Escondido.
Their three main counterpoints:
- Reasonable shoppers judge by the boldest claim on display.
- An ingredient list does not cure a misleading headline.
- Both ingredients perform preservative functions, according to the complaint.
Costco Rotisserie Chicken Lawsuit Status in 2026
As of September 20, 2026, the case is in early litigation with no reported settlement.
No ruling on Costco’s motion appears in the coverage reviewed. The next milestone is a decision from the judge.
Federal courts run on their own clock, more like a slow cooker than a microwave. Weeks can pass between a hearing and a written order.
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| January 22, 2026 | Complaint filed in the Southern District of California |
| Late January 2026 | Costco removes the “No Preservatives” statements |
| February 12, 2026 | Separate salmonella suit filed in Seattle |
| June 4, 2026 | Costco files its motion to dismiss |
| June 23, 2026 | Plaintiffs’ opposition reported |
| August 13, 2026 | Hearing set in San Diego |
| September 20, 2026 | No ruling reported in coverage reviewed |
Key Takeaway: The case is early, undecided, and waiting on a ruling on Costco’s motion to dismiss.
Who Is the Judge and When Was the Costco Hearing?
U.S. District Judge Anthony J. Battaglia is assigned to the case.
Allison H. Goddard is the referred magistrate judge. Magistrate judges often handle scheduling and discovery disputes.
Costco was expected to seek dismissal at an August 13 hearing in San Diego. A judge was set to hear the motion that day.
No decision from that hearing appears in the coverage reviewed. Rulings can land days or months after argument. The docket is the fastest place to spot one.
| Court Detail | Info |
|---|---|
| Case | Johnston v. Costco Wholesale Corporation |
| Case number | 3:26-cv-00403-AJB-AHG |
| District judge | Anthony J. Battaglia |
| Magistrate judge | Allison H. Goddard |
| Court | U.S. District Court, Southern District of California |
| Hearing date | August 13, 2026 |
Who Qualifies for the Costco Rotisserie Chicken Class Action?
Nobody officially qualifies yet, because the court has not certified a class.
The plaintiffs want to represent U.S. buyers of the chicken, plus a California subclass. Those groups are proposals, not approved classes.
Likely members would be shoppers who bought while the “No Preservatives” signs were up. Exact dates would come from the court.
Keep proof of purchase now. Receipts, membership app history, and card statements all help. Proof matters if a settlement ever requires it.
| Proposed Group | Who Is Included | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Nationwide class | U.S. buyers of Kirkland Seasoned Rotisserie Chicken | Proposed, not certified |
| California subclass | California buyers of the same chicken | Proposed, not certified |
How Much Could You Get From the Costco Chicken Lawsuit?
No payout exists today, because there is no settlement and no court award.
The plaintiffs seek damages, restitution, and an order stopping the advertising. They have not stated a specific dollar figure for damages.
A price premium case repays the extra cost, not the whole chicken. That usually means small per-person amounts. Class members often receive only a slice of a larger fund.
Here is a hypothetical. Costco sold 157 million chickens worldwide in 2025. The U.S. class would be smaller, and the real class period is not set.
| Hypothetical Premium Per Chicken | Total on 157 Million Chickens |
|---|---|
| $0.10 | $15.7 million |
| $0.25 | $39.25 million |
| $0.50 | $78.5 million |
| $1.00 | $157 million |
Real numbers would depend on U.S. sales, the class period, and an expert’s premium estimate.
Key Takeaway: No money is available now, and any future payout would likely reflect a small per-chicken premium.
How to Join the Costco Chicken Class Action
You cannot join yet, because no claim form or sign-up process exists.
Class actions like this usually work on an opt-out basis. If a class is certified, official notice goes out. Members stay in unless they choose to leave.
Any website offering a claim form today is guessing. Wait for notice tied to the actual case number.
Here is what you can do right now:
- Save receipts, membership app history, and card statements.
- Note when you bought the chicken and which signs you saw.
- Watch for news on the ruling on Costco’s motion.
- Check your email and mail for official notice.
Both plaintiffs say they would buy the chicken again if it were truly preservative free. Many shoppers feel the same way, which is why the label matters.
What Happens If the Judge Dismisses the Costco Case?
A dismissal ends the current complaint, but the type of dismissal decides what comes next.
Costco asked for dismissal with prejudice. Only that version blocks refiling. A dismissal without prejudice lets the plaintiffs try again.
A denial is a green light, not a win. It sends the case forward but proves nothing about who is right.
| Ruling | What It Means | Likely Next Step |
|---|---|---|
| Granted with prejudice | Case ends in this court | Plaintiffs may appeal to the Ninth Circuit |
| Granted without prejudice | Plaintiffs get another chance | New amended complaint |
| Denied | Case moves forward | Discovery and class certification fight |
| Partly granted | Some claims survive | Narrower case continues |
Costco argues any amendment would be futile. The judge must decide whether that is true.
Costco Salmonella Lawsuit vs. the Preservatives Lawsuit
The salmonella case is a separate lawsuit, filed February 12 in Seattle.
Lisa Taylor of Affton, Missouri, says she overpaid for chicken with an undisclosed contamination risk. She seeks damages for shoppers who bought since January 1, 2019.
Costco moved to dismiss, arguing Taylor showed no actual contamination or injury. A ruling in one case does not decide the other.
| Detail | Preservatives Case | Salmonella Case |
|---|---|---|
| Court | Southern District of California | Seattle federal court |
| Plaintiffs | Bianca Johnston, Anatasia Chernov | Lisa Taylor |
| Core claim | “No Preservatives” was false advertising | Contamination risk went undisclosed |
| Costco’s answer | Ingredients are seasoning, price never changed | No contamination or injury alleged |
Key Takeaway: Two separate Costco chicken suits exist, and only one turns on sodium phosphate and carrageenan.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was Costco’s response to the rotisserie chicken preservatives lawsuit?
Costco filed a motion to dismiss on June 4, 2026.
It says sodium phosphate and carrageenan are seasoning ingredients, not FDA-defined preservatives.
It adds that the unchanged $4.99 price shows no premium was charged.
Does Costco’s rotisserie chicken contain preservatives?
The chicken contains sodium phosphate and carrageenan, which the plaintiffs call preservatives.
Costco says both are seasoning ingredients, not preservatives.
The court has not decided the question.
Can I join the Costco rotisserie chicken class action?
Not yet, because no class has been certified.
No claim form or settlement exists today.
Keep your receipts and watch for official notice.
How much money could I get from the Costco chicken lawsuit?
No payout exists today.
Any recovery would likely reflect a small price premium per chicken.
Money would come only from a settlement or court award.
Has the judge ruled on Costco’s motion to dismiss?
No ruling appears in coverage reviewed through September 20, 2026.
The hearing was set for August 13 in San Diego.
Watch the docket for Case No. 3:26-cv-00403.
Costco’s answer is clear. It says the two ingredients are seasoning, the label is honest, and no shopper overpaid.
The plaintiffs say a bold sign beats small print. A judge will decide which view holds.
For now, no claim form exists. Save your receipts and watch for the ruling. Stay tuned for updates as the court acts.
