Costco disputes proposed class action over alleged rotisserie chicken “false advertising”

Costco is fighting a proposed class action lawsuit accusing it of falsely advertising its Kirkland Signature Seasoned Rotisserie Chicken. Two women filed the complaint in January and, according to reporting, the suit alleges the product is marketed in a way that misleads consumers.

The plaintiffs’ core contention is that Costco’s advertising for the Kirkland-branded rotisserie chicken does not match what they say is true about the item. The suit was framed as a proposed class action, meaning the plaintiffs are asking a court to allow the case to represent a wider group of consumers if the claims move forward.

In response, Costco publicly disputed the lawsuit and characterized it as “fatally flawed,” a standard phrase typically used to argue that the complaint fails on legal or factual grounds at the pleading stage. The response also indicates Costco’s intent to resist early attempts to broaden the dispute into a class action.

The case centers on a product category Costco relies on for high in-store traffic. Costco sells Kirkland Signature items alongside name-brand goods, and rotisserie chicken is a familiar grab-and-go option in many warehouse stores. Because Kirkland is Costco’s in-house label, disputes about how products are described or promoted can become particularly sensitive for consumer-facing messaging.

Litigation over “false advertising” claims generally turns on what the challenged statements actually say, how reasonable consumers interpret them, and whether the alleged differences rise to the level of deception under consumer-protection law. At this stage, however, courts typically focus less on whether consumers were actually harmed and more on whether the plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that Costco’s marketing was misleading.

Costco did not, in the reporting summarized here, lay out detailed evidence or counterclaims about the chicken’s composition or marketing language. The public response appears aimed at stopping the case early by contesting the legal sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ allegations rather than offering a lengthy factual rebuttal in the initial posture described in the article.

The next procedural steps will likely determine how quickly the dispute narrows. If the court addresses Costco’s arguments about the complaint’s viability, that could affect whether the case survives at all, or whether it proceeds only as an individual claim before class-action certification is even considered.

If the suit advances, the scope of any class would depend on the specific language plaintiffs challenge and the proof they can assemble. For now, consumers and investors are left with the headline that Costco says the allegations cannot proceed, while the plaintiffs continue seeking to bring the matter to a wider pool of shoppers.