Costco’s iconic $5 rotisserie chicken — a staple as familiar as the warehouse’s concrete floors — is now at the center of a proposed class action lawsuit that claims the retail giant misled shoppers about what’s inside the plastic dome.

Filed Thursday in San Diego, the lawsuit accuses Costco of falsely advertising its Kirkland Signature $5 rotisserie chicken as free of preservatives, when, according to the plaintiffs, the product contains ingredients that function exactly as that.

Plaintiffs Challenge Marketing Claims

The Costco $5 rotisserie chicken lawsuit was brought by Anatasia Chernov of Escondido and Bianca Johnston of Big Bear, who argue that Costco’s in-store signage and website give consumers a clear — and allegedly false — message.

According to the complaint, Costco’s marketing materials “create an overall net impression” that the rotisserie chicken contains no added preservatives, a claim the plaintiffs say does not match the product’s actual ingredients.

Allegations Focus on Ingredients and Disclosure

Sodium Phosphate and Carrageenan at Issue

The lawsuit alleges the chicken includes two added preservatives: sodium phosphate and carrageenan. These substances, the filing states, function as preservatives and directly undermine Costco’s prominent “No Preservatives” representations.

“The presence of sodium phosphate and carrageenan, added preservatives which function as such in the Rotisserie Chicken, contradict the overall net impression that Costco’s ‘No Preservatives’ advertising creates,” the lawsuit says.

Small Print vs. Big Promises

The plaintiffs argue that shoppers reasonably rely on preservative-free claims when choosing food for themselves and their families — and that they had no practical way of knowing the chicken allegedly contained preservatives before buying it.

While the ingredients may appear on the label, the lawsuit contends they are buried in small print on the back of the packaging and fail to clearly explain the preservatives’ purpose. The complaint further alleges Costco was aware of the ingredients’ function but did not disclose that information in a meaningful way.

According to the plaintiffs, minimal disclosure cannot counterbalance the bold, front-facing “no preservatives” messaging displayed in Costco stores and promotional materials.

Legal Team Calls Marketing ‘Unlawful and Unfair’

In a statement posted on the Almeida Law Group website, Wesley M. Griffith, California managing partner and attorney for the plaintiffs, said consumers are entitled to trust clear food labels.

“Consumers reasonably rely on clear, prominent claims like ‘No Preservatives,’ especially when deciding what they and their families will eat,” Griffith said. “Costco’s own ingredient list contradicts its marketing. That’s unlawful, and it’s unfair.”

As the case moves forward, the lawsuit threatens to put one of Costco’s most famous loss leaders under judicial heat — turning a grocery-store favorite into a legal flashpoint.