Costco is facing a new class action lawsuit that challenges the labeling of its popular Kirkland Signature Five Cheese Tortelloni, alleging the frozen pasta package falsely advertises “no preservatives” while the ingredient list includes citric acid—a preservative manufactured using Aspergillus niger, a fungal organism. The lawsuit, filed by plaintiff Sydney Turner in April 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, claims Costco violated state and federal consumer protection laws by making contradictory claims on the same package that shoppers rely on when selecting products. This litigation echoes a similar case against Costco regarding its Kirkland Signature Rotisserie Chicken, where the retailer removed “no preservatives” signage without actually changing the recipe.
The core problem centers on a fundamental labeling contradiction: the front-of-package claim promises no preservatives, but citric acid appears in the ingredient statement. While citric acid itself is widely used and permitted in food, the lawsuit specifically emphasizes that this ingredient is manufactured through industrial fermentation using Aspergillus niger—information consumers do not see on the label. Costco’s labeling practice creates consumer confusion about what “no preservatives” actually means on the product, which is the basis of Turner’s claims under consumer fraud statutes. As of June 5, 2026, this case remains in early litigation stages with no settlement reached and no certified class established. Consumers who purchased the Kirkland Signature Five Cheese Tortelloni may eventually be eligible to participate in a class action, but the timeline and claim requirements have not yet been determined by the court.
Table of Contents
- WHAT IS THE LABELING DISPUTE IN THE COSTCO TORTELLONI LAWSUIT?
- UNDERSTANDING ASPERGILLUS NIGER AND CITRIC ACID MANUFACTURING
- THE KIRKLAND SIGNATURE ROTISSERIE CHICKEN PRECEDENT
- WHO IS ELIGIBLE FOR THIS CLASS ACTION AND HOW DO CLAIMS WORK?
- WHAT CONSUMERS SHOULD KNOW ABOUT THIS LITIGATION TIMELINE
- THE BROADER IMPLICATIONS FOR FOOD LABELING PRACTICES
- WHAT COMES NEXT IN THE LITIGATION
- Conclusion
WHAT IS THE LABELING DISPUTE IN THE COSTCO TORTELLONI LAWSUIT?
The lawsuit hinges on a labeling inconsistency that consumers encounter at the point of purchase. The front of the Kirkland Signature Five Cheese Tortelloni package displays a clear claim that the product contains “no preservatives,” which appeals to consumers seeking minimally processed foods. However, when consumers review the ingredient list on the back of the same package, they find citric acid listed among the ingredients—and citric acid functions as a preservative that extends shelf life and prevents spoilage. This contradiction violates the principle that package labeling should not mislead consumers through conflicting statements.
The Federal Food and Drug Administration permits citric acid in food, but the question in this lawsuit is whether Costco can simultaneously claim “no preservatives” while using an ingredient specifically chosen for its preservative properties. For a consumer selecting between similar tortelloni products, the front-of-package claim shapes the purchasing decision, while the back-of-package ingredient list may not receive equal attention during the shopping experience. The lawsuit argues that Costco violated California consumer protection laws and federal labeling standards by making the front-of-package claim without clear disclosure about the citric acid preservative. This mirrors a longstanding pattern in food litigation where manufacturers use prominent front-label claims while burying contradictory information in smaller print on the back.
UNDERSTANDING ASPERGILLUS NIGER AND CITRIC ACID MANUFACTURING
Citric acid used in commercial food production is manufactured through industrial fermentation, not extracted from citrus fruits as many consumers might assume. The manufacturing process uses Aspergillus niger, a fungal organism, to ferment carbohydrates in a controlled industrial setting. This is the standard and FDA-approved method for producing citric acid at commercial scale, and the resulting ingredient is chemically identical to citric acid found in lemons or limes. However, the lawsuit’s emphasis on Aspergillus niger highlights a gap between what consumers understand about product ingredients and what actually happens in food manufacturing.
Most shoppers do not realize that citric acid on an ingredient label typically comes from this fungal fermentation process rather than from fruit. The lawsuit alleges that this manufacturing reality, combined with Costco’s front-label claim of “no preservatives,” creates material consumer deception—consumers believe they are purchasing a product with minimal processing or additives, when in fact the product relies on an industrially manufactured preservative ingredient. A limitation of this argument is that Aspergillus niger fermentation is a standard, safe, and widely accepted food manufacturing method regulated by the FDA. The organism itself is not pathogenic in food at the concentrations present in fermented citric acid, and the final product is a purified chemical ingredient, not a biological product containing the organism. The lawsuit’s focus on the organism name may evoke concern among consumers without necessarily indicating a safety issue with the final product.
THE KIRKLAND SIGNATURE ROTISSERIE CHICKEN PRECEDENT
Costco has faced similar labeling criticism before in another Kirkland Signature product case. The company was sued over “no preservatives” claims on Kirkland Signature Rotisserie Chicken packaging, which also contained citric acid and other preservatives in its ingredient list. Rather than contesting that lawsuit or settling it through a formal class action process, Costco chose to remove the “no preservatives” signage from rotisserie chicken displays in stores—without changing the actual recipe or ingredients. This precedent suggests that Costco recognized the labeling claim created legal vulnerability, even though the underlying product remained unchanged.
Removing the sign was a business decision to eliminate the contradiction, but it did not address the underlying inventory of rotisserie chicken already sold under the previous labeling. For consumers in that case, the response came after they had already purchased products based on the disputed claim, and no formal settlement or class mechanism was established to compensate those affected. The rotisserie chicken situation demonstrates that Costco may face similar pressure regarding the tortelloni product. Whether the company removes or modifies labeling, creates a settlement, or contests the lawsuit through litigation remains to be seen, but the precedent shows Costco’s pattern of responding to these disputes by changing marketing claims rather than the products themselves.
WHO IS ELIGIBLE FOR THIS CLASS ACTION AND HOW DO CLAIMS WORK?
At this stage in litigation, the exact class definition has not been established because the case has not advanced to class certification. Typically, in a tortelloni labeling class action, the class would include all consumers who purchased the Kirkland Signature Five Cheese Tortelloni during a specific time period—likely from the date the allegedly deceptive labeling began through a cutoff date. The specific product size, UPC code, and purchase location (Costco warehouses) would define the boundaries of the eligible class. Once a settlement is reached or a judgment is issued, and if a court certifies the class, claims would typically be submitted through a settlement administrator.
A comparison to similar food labeling class actions shows that affected consumers usually fall into one of three categories: those who bought the product with a receipt and can provide proof of purchase; those who bought the product without a receipt but can provide credible evidence of purchase; and in some cases, those who merely can certify they purchased the product during the relevant period (called “implausible claim” provisions, though these vary by settlement). Each category may receive different payment levels. The challenge with food product class actions is that individual damages are typically small—a tortelloni package costs roughly $4-8, and a consumer’s economic loss would be the difference between the price paid and the actual value of the product. Because individual damages are minimal, most food labeling class actions result in claims averaging $5-25 per class member, with larger payments reserved for those who can document multiple purchases.
WHAT CONSUMERS SHOULD KNOW ABOUT THIS LITIGATION TIMELINE
The lawsuit was filed on April 29, 2026, which means it is only weeks old as of June 5, 2026. Early-stage class action litigation typically progresses through discovery, where both sides exchange documents and evidence, before moving toward a potential settlement or motion for class certification. For a consumer contemplating whether to watch this lawsuit or take action, it is important to understand that this case is not immediately approaching settlement or a claims deadline. A realistic timeline for this litigation would place any settlement announcement at minimum 6 to 18 months away, assuming the parties reach agreement before trial. If the case goes to trial or faces significant motion practice, resolution could take years.
During that time, consumers do not need to “opt out” or take immediate action to preserve their rights, as they will be automatically included in the class once it is certified, unless they actively elect to opt out. However, many class members miss claims deadlines after settlements are eventually reached, so the best practice is to monitor the case progress or set a calendar reminder to check for updates periodically. A warning: consumers should be skeptical of unsolicited emails or advertisements promising to help them file claims in this lawsuit. Claims administrators will publicize official settlement information through press releases and court-approved notices, while fraudulent claim-filing services may charge upfront fees to submit claims. The legitimate class action process does not require paying anyone to submit a claim.
THE BROADER IMPLICATIONS FOR FOOD LABELING PRACTICES
The Costco tortelloni lawsuit is part of a larger wave of food litigation focused on “clean label” and “natural” marketing claims that conflict with ingredient realities. Across the industry, manufacturers use prominent front-of-package language like “no preservatives,” “naturally made,” and “clean ingredients” to differentiate products and command premium prices, while the actual ingredient lists include processing aids and preservatives that many consumers do not recognize or understand. Citric acid, which appears in over 1,000 packaged food products, is particularly common in this tension—it is derived from industrial fermentation but is associated with citrus fruits in the consumer mind.
This litigation may prompt Costco and other retailers to clarify their labeling or remove contradictory claims entirely. Over time, if courts consistently find that “no preservatives” claims are deceptive when citric acid is present, manufacturers may need to either remove the claim or reformulate the product to eliminate citric acid and use alternative preservation methods. The outcome of this case could influence labeling practices across the frozen pasta industry and beyond.
WHAT COMES NEXT IN THE LITIGATION
The immediate next steps in Turner v. Costco involve the parties’ legal filings and early-stage motions. Costco will likely respond to the complaint with its own legal arguments, potentially filing a motion to dismiss if the company believes the claims do not state a valid legal violation.
The plaintiff’s attorneys will then pursue discovery to gather evidence about when the labeling was created, what testing or consumer research Costco conducted, and whether company decision-makers were aware of the contradiction between the front-label and ingredient-list claims. Settlement negotiations often occur behind the scenes during discovery, so Costco and Turner’s legal team may reach a resolution without public announcement. However, if no settlement emerges, the case would eventually proceed to a motion for class certification, where the court determines whether the case can proceed as a class action and establishes the class definition. Only after class certification or a judgment on the merits would a claims process begin for consumers to recover any compensation.
Conclusion
The Costco Kirkland Signature Five Cheese Tortelloni lawsuit presents a straightforward consumer protection claim: a product package cannot simultaneously claim “no preservatives” on the front while listing citric acid (a preservative) in the ingredient list. Sydney Turner’s case, filed in April 2026, alleges this contradiction violates California and federal consumer protection laws, and if successful, could result in a class action recovery for consumers who purchased the product based on the misleading labeling.
Consumers who bought this product should monitor the case progress, but they do not need to take immediate action, as they will be automatically included in any eventual class settlement unless they actively opt out. Settlement details, claim deadlines, and eligible class definitions will be established later in the litigation process. For now, the case serves as a reminder that front-of-package marketing claims deserve scrutiny against the actual ingredient list—a practice that applies to thousands of food products across retail shelves.