<p>，/PRNewswire/ -- 兩名加利福尼亞消費者已對好市多（Costco Wholesale Corporation）提起全國性集體訴訟，指控這家零售巨頭通過虛假宣傳其受歡迎的 Kirkland Signature 調味旋轉烤雞含有 “無防腐劑”，而實際上該產品添加了延長保質期和保持質地的防腐劑，誤導了數百萬購物者。</p>
<p>該訴訟在加利福尼亞南區美國地方法院提起，控訴稱好市多通過在店內和在線上顯著宣傳旋轉烤雞為無防腐劑，系統性地欺騙了消費者，導致其損失數千萬甚至數億美元，同時添加了作為防腐劑的磷酸鈉和卡拉膠。</p>
<p><strong>顯著的 “無防腐劑” 聲明被指誤導消費者</strong></p>
<p>根據訴訟，好市多在店內展示大型標牌和在線產品列表，聲明 “無防腐劑”，沒有任何限制。原告加利福尼亞大熊湖的 Bianca Johnston 和加利福尼亞埃斯孔迪多的 Anatasia Chernov 表示，他們在購買該產品時依賴於這些表述，認為雞肉不含任何保持味道、質地或保質期的添加劑。</p>
<p>訴狀稱好市多的表述是虛假和誤導性的，因為添加到旋轉烤雞中的磷酸鈉和卡拉膠具有防腐功能，通過抑制變質、穩定蛋白質和延長貨架穩定性。</p>
<p>加利福尼亞阿爾梅達律師事務所的管理合夥人 <strong>Wesley M. Griffith</strong> 表示：“消費者在決定自己和家人將吃什麼時，合理地依賴於清晰、顯著的聲明，如 ‘無防腐劑’。好市多自己的成分列表與其營銷相矛盾。這是違法的，也是 unfair 的。”</p>
<p><strong>消費者日益尋求食品成分的透明度</strong></p>
<p>訴訟引用行業研究顯示，消費者對與防腐劑相關的聲明非常重視，並越來越尋求不含添加劑的 “乾淨標籤” 產品。原告聲稱好市多利用了這一趨勢，同時隱瞞了其產品的真實性質。</p>
<p><strong>根據華盛頓州和加利福尼亞州消費者保護法的指控</strong></p>
<p>訴狀提出的指控包括：</p>
<ul>
<li>華盛頓州消費者保護法</li>
<li>加利福尼亞消費者法律救濟法</li>
<li>加利福尼亞不公平競爭法</li>
<li>加利福尼亞虛假廣告法</li>
</ul>
<p>原告尋求禁令救濟、賠償、損害賠償和通過好市多的誤導性營銷獲得的利潤返還。</p>
<p><strong>原告表示如果知道真相就不會購買該產品</strong></p>
<p>兩名原告均表示，如果好市多披露該產品含有添加的防腐劑，他們就不會購買旋轉烤雞——或者會支付更少的價格。他們還表示，如果該產品確實不含防腐劑，他們打算在未來再次購買，但在好市多的表述不真實的情況下無法依賴其宣傳。</p>
<p><strong>案件信息</strong></p>
<p>案件為 <em>Johnston vs. Costco Wholesale Corporation,</em> 加利福尼亞南區美國地方法院。案件編號尚未分配。</p>
<p>來源 阿爾梅達律師事務所（Almeida Law Group, LLC）</p>
<p><img src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://rt.prnewswire.com/rt.gif/query-RGF0ZUlkPTIwMjYwMTIyJk5ld3NJdGVtSWQ9Q0w2OTUzNSZUcmFuc21pc3Npb25fSWQ9MjAyNjAxMjIxOTA4UFJfTkVXU19VU1BSX19fX19DTDY5NTM1?x-oss-process=image/auto-orient,1/interlace,1/resize,w_1440,h_1440/quality,q_95/format,jpg" alt="" original-src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://rt.prnewswire.com/rt.gif/query-RGF0ZUlkPTIwMjYwMTIyJk5ld3NJdGVtSWQ9Q0w2OTUzNSZUcmFuc21pc3Npb25fSWQ9MjAyNjAxMjIxOTA4UFJfTkVXU19VU1BSX19fX19DTDY5NTM1"/></p>

開市客

<p>兩名加利福尼亞消費者已對好市多提起集體訴訟，聲稱該公司虛假宣傳其 Kirkland Signature 旋轉烤雞為 “無防腐劑”。訴訟稱，這種雞肉含有磷酸鈉和卡拉膠，這些成分作為防腐劑，與好市多的營銷聲明相矛盾。原告辯稱，他們在購買該產品時依賴於這些陳述，並根據各種消費者保護法尋求賠償和補償。他們聲稱，如果知道雞肉含有防腐劑，他們就不會購買</p>

<p>, /PRNewswire/ -- Two California consumers have filed a nationwide class action lawsuit against Costco Wholesale Corporation, alleging the retail giant has misled millions of shoppers by falsely advertising its popular Kirkland Signature Seasoned Rotisserie Chicken as containing &#34;no preservatives,&#34; despite formulating the product with added preservatives that extend shelf life and maintain texture.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>，/PRNewswire/ -- 兩名加利福尼亞消費者已對好市多（Costco Wholesale Corporation）提起全國性集體訴訟，指控這家零售巨頭通過虛假宣傳其受歡迎的 Kirkland Signature 調味旋轉烤雞含有 “無防腐劑”，而實際上該產品添加了延長保質期和保持質地的防腐劑，誤導了數百萬購物者。</p>
</div><p>Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, the complaint asserts that Costco has &#34;systemically cheated customers out of tens—if not hundreds—of millions of dollars&#34; by prominently marketing the Rotisserie Chicken as preservative–free in stores and online while adding sodium phosphate and carrageenan—ingredients that function as preservatives.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>該訴訟在加利福尼亞南區美國地方法院提起，控訴稱好市多通過在店內和在線上顯著宣傳旋轉烤雞為無防腐劑，系統性地欺騙了消費者，導致其損失數千萬甚至數億美元，同時添加了作為防腐劑的磷酸鈉和卡拉膠。</p>
</div><p><strong>Prominent &#34;No Preservatives&#34; Claims Allegedly Misled Shoppers</strong></p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p><strong>顯著的 “無防腐劑” 聲明被指誤導消費者</strong></p>
</div><p>According to the lawsuit, Costco displays large in–store signage and online product listings stating &#34;No Preservatives,&#34; without qualification. Plaintiffs Bianca Johnston of Big Bear, California and Anatasia Chernov of Escondido, California say they relied on these representations when purchasing the product, believing the chicken contained no additives that preserve taste, texture, or shelf life.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>根據訴訟，好市多在店內展示大型標牌和在線產品列表，聲明 “無防腐劑”，沒有任何限制。原告加利福尼亞大熊湖的 Bianca Johnston 和加利福尼亞埃斯孔迪多的 Anatasia Chernov 表示，他們在購買該產品時依賴於這些表述，認為雞肉不含任何保持味道、質地或保質期的添加劑。</p>
</div><p>The complaint alleges that Costco's representations were false and misleading because sodium phosphate and carrageenan—both added to the Rotisserie Chicken—perform preservative functions by inhibiting spoilage, stabilizing proteins, and extending shelf stability.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>訴狀稱好市多的表述是虛假和誤導性的，因為添加到旋轉烤雞中的磷酸鈉和卡拉膠具有防腐功能，通過抑制變質、穩定蛋白質和延長貨架穩定性。</p>
</div><p>&#34;Consumers reasonably rely on clear, prominent claims like 'No Preservatives,' especially when deciding what they and their families will eat,&#34; said California Managing Partner <strong>Wesley M. Griffith</strong> of the Almeida Law Group. &#34;Costco's own ingredient list contradicts its marketing. That's unlawful, and it's unfair.&#34;</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>加利福尼亞阿爾梅達律師事務所的管理合夥人 <strong>Wesley M. Griffith</strong> 表示：“消費者在決定自己和家人將吃什麼時，合理地依賴於清晰、顯著的聲明，如 ‘無防腐劑’。好市多自己的成分列表與其營銷相矛盾。這是違法的，也是 unfair 的。”</p>
</div><p><strong>Consumers Increasingly Seek Transparency in Food Ingredients</strong></p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p><strong>消費者日益尋求食品成分的透明度</strong></p>
</div><p>The lawsuit cites industry research showing that consumers place significant weight on preservative–related claims and increasingly seek &#34;clean label&#34; products free from additives. Plaintiffs allege that Costco capitalized on this trend while concealing the true nature of its product.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>訴訟引用行業研究顯示，消費者對與防腐劑相關的聲明非常重視，並越來越尋求不含添加劑的 “乾淨標籤” 產品。原告聲稱好市多利用了這一趨勢，同時隱瞞了其產品的真實性質。</p>
</div><p><strong>Claims Under Washington and California Consumer Protection Laws</strong></p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p><strong>根據華盛頓州和加利福尼亞州消費者保護法的指控</strong></p>
</div><p>The complaint brings claims under:</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>訴狀提出的指控包括：</p>
</div><ul>
<li>Washington Consumer Protection Act</li>
<li>California Consumers Legal Remedies Act</li>
<li>California Unfair Competition Law</li>
<li>California False Advertising Law</li>
</ul>
<div class="lb-trans"><ul>
<li>華盛頓州消費者保護法</li>
<li>加利福尼亞消費者法律救濟法</li>
<li>加利福尼亞不公平競爭法</li>
<li>加利福尼亞虛假廣告法</li>
</ul>
</div><p>Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, restitution, damages, and disgorgement of profits obtained through Costco's misleading marketing.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>原告尋求禁令救濟、賠償、損害賠償和通過好市多的誤導性營銷獲得的利潤返還。</p>
</div><p><strong>Plaintiffs Say They Would Not Have Purchased the Product Had They Known the Truth</strong></p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p><strong>原告表示如果知道真相就不會購買該產品</strong></p>
</div><p>Both plaintiffs allege they would not have purchased the Rotisserie Chicken—or would have paid less—had Costco disclosed that the product contains added preservatives. They also state they intend to purchase the product again in the future if it is actually preservative free but cannot rely on Costco's representations unless they are truthful.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>兩名原告均表示，如果好市多披露該產品含有添加的防腐劑，他們就不會購買旋轉烤雞——或者會支付更少的價格。他們還表示，如果該產品確實不含防腐劑，他們打算在未來再次購買，但在好市多的表述不真實的情況下無法依賴其宣傳。</p>
</div><p><strong>Case Information</strong></p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p><strong>案件信息</strong></p>
</div><p>The case is <em>Johnston vs. Costco Wholesale Corporation,</em> United States District Court for the Southern District of California. A case number has not yet been assigned.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>案件為 <em>Johnston vs. Costco Wholesale Corporation,</em> 加利福尼亞南區美國地方法院。案件編號尚未分配。</p>
</div><p>SOURCE Almeida Law Group, LLC</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>來源 阿爾梅達律師事務所（Almeida Law Group, LLC）</p>
</div><p><img src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://rt.prnewswire.com/rt.gif/query-RGF0ZUlkPTIwMjYwMTIyJk5ld3NJdGVtSWQ9Q0w2OTUzNSZUcmFuc21pc3Npb25fSWQ9MjAyNjAxMjIxOTA4UFJfTkVXU19VU1BSX19fX19DTDY5NTM1" alt="" original-src="https://rt.prnewswire.com/rt.gif?NewsItemId=CL69535&amp;Transmission_Id=202601221908PR_NEWS_USPR_____CL69535&amp;DateId=20260122"/></p>

19:08 ET
			
			
				Consumers Represented by the Almeida Law Group File Class Action Alleging Costco Deceived Shoppers with False "No Preservatives" Claims on Kirkland Rotisserie Chicken

由 Almeida 法律集團代表的消費者提起集體訴訟，指控開市客在 Kirkland 烤雞上以虛假的 “無防腐劑” 聲明誤導消費者