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.
