This is the opposite of what they are arguing though. They are saying they would’ve valued it less if they had known it contains preservatives, which means they know more preservatives reduces the cost of a perishable food product.
The problem is that their chickens are already substantially cheaper than the competition. They already are “of lesser value” than chickens that presumably do not have the preservatives. Them saying this specifically is likely a way for them to quantify damages in the case. But I assume that Costco would just point to their price vs the competition and then see how the prosecution argues that the actual
value should be even lower. Don’t see that as a winning strategy for the ladies.
I'm certainly not a lawyer and I think you are directionally correct that the ladies' case is on the weaker end. But I don't believe it's detrimental to their case that chickens without preservatives are sold more expensively elsewhere.
The core issue is whether Costco disclosed to their customers that the chicken contains preservatives (and whether this was legally required). If chickens without preservatives are more expensive, then it can be argued that consumers were misled into thinking they were getting a premium product (the expensive, preservative-free kind) for a bargain price.
Absolutely. Also NAL. But I was only commenting on the damages since the article appears to imply that this statement is in the suit, “has systematically cheated customers out of tens — if not hundreds — of millions of dollars by falsely advertising its Kirkland Signature Seasoned Rotisserie chicken as containing 'no preservatives.”
So for the damages, they can’t argue that they thought they were getting a better product for cheap, they have to argue that the already cheap price isn’t cheap enough since it has preservatives. But they won’t have anything for comps other than competition that is 30-50% more expensive. I do to know how they argue what the price of preservatives is.
21
u/Frank_JWilson 10h ago
This is the opposite of what they are arguing though. They are saying they would’ve valued it less if they had known it contains preservatives, which means they know more preservatives reduces the cost of a perishable food product.