The topic of “Costco Kirkland Nike SB Dunks” is trending due to recent news surrounding a collaboration between Costco’s Kirkland Signature brand and Nike. Reports indicate that the Kirkland x Nike SB Dunk shoes have been officially released, generating considerable interest among sneaker enthusiasts and Costco shoppers alike. This partnership, which is a crossover between a well-known warehouse club brand and a major athletic footwear label, has captured attention for its uniqueness.
The Men’s Journal article discusses the new release’s value proposition, addressing whether the shoes are worth their price—this question likely stimulates curiosity among potential buyers, further driving search interest. Additionally, Complex provided details about the release date, prompting fans of both Costco and Nike to actively seek more information regarding availability and specifics about the shoes.
The combination of a widely recognized retailer like Costco entering the sneaker market through a collaboration with a prestigious brand like Nike is a significant draw. The rarity and intrigue of such limited edition products generally lead to spikes in search volumes as consumers aim to stay informed and figure out how to purchase them. This unique collaboration and the surrounding publicity are significant factors behind the increased searches exceeding 20,000.
Watch the Moment
Internet Reacts
M
*”Despite the two California women initiating the lawsuit, both said they plan to purchase Costco’s rotisserie chicken again”* this is my favorite part
O
Does suing Costco really not result in your membership being revoked?
B
Depends on the settlement terms.
S
Great. Now it’s going to cost 6 dollars for a chicken
B
Or 6 dollars for a hotdog (or supreme pizza).
S
I do *not* want to be the executive that raises the price of hotdogs
V
Who wouldn’t want to join a circle of excellence that includes the VP that approved the Pontiac Aztek, the product manager that greenlit New Coke, and the ad manager for Bud Light?
S
I don’t have a death wish: https://www.today.com/food/costco-co-founder-reportedly-told-ceo-he-d-kill-him-t192310
V
If you live or lived anywhere near Seattle in the last 20 years, Costco stories like that one are practically bedtime stories.
S
The Sony exec that sold K-Pop Demon Hunters to Netflix
B
Don’t forget the Atlantic Records executive who dropped Chappell Roan.
N
You get all three and then stuff the hotdogs in the chicken, and then wrap the chicken in pizza, like a turducken: a pizzdogen
I
*Dean Winchester enters the chat*
H
That will give you the cheesy blasters.
M
Hi, Meat Cat!
B
God I wish my Costco sold supreme pizza, it’s just pep and cheese out here
L
If you don’t like what’s in the chicken, you really don’t wanna know what’s in the hot dogs
H
While there is pending litigation, can Costco suspend their membership? Can we suspend their membership? 🙂
S
Free chicken for life! Max one per day.
D
Deal, no take backs
S
Would it not depend on the membership agreement? There could be a clause terminating the agreement if you sue the company.
E
I mean they don’t have to wait.
S
If you work for a law firm that sues any of James Dolan or any of his properties, you are barred from entering all of his properties. They use facial recognition software on their security cameras to enforce the ban. A lawyer from Georgia worked for one of the largest personal injury firms in the US took a trip to New York with his young son to go to a Rangers game and they found out the hard way that his firm was suing Madison Square Garden when event security stopped him at the entrance gate.
J
That seems like it should be illegal.
M
Sounds like one of the top 10 reasons to never put your picture on your company website or any other website that links you to your profession and place of employment.
M
I know I am going to sound weird but it shouldn’t be automatic, now if the lawsuit was found to be a SLAPP or spurious lawsuit yes that should occur.
S
Doesn’t that kind of directly counter their main argument? That Costco dishonestly got their money because they would not have bought the chickens if they knew there were preservatives? Like, why would they admit that?
J
I want to see Costco show up to defend this case by providing copies of these women’s receipts that show all of the other products they purchased in the store that were full of preservatives. This will most likely get settled quietly out of court.
C
This, and keep in mind the word preservative also includes salt, sugar, and vinegars – all common ingredients in marinades. Rotisserie chickens made without those ingredients would be terrible. The two targeted ones are fairly natural and not even commonly considered preservatives. Carrageenan is derived from seaweed and is an insanely common ingredient. Neither is used for shelf life, they’re flavor and moisture enhancers.
E
I guess I think of them both as flavor/texture enhancers and not actually preservatives (ie they are not extending the shelf life, just make the product taste better). Plus, the additives were listed on the bag. This seems like a ridiculous lawsuit.
C
It is a great example of a frivolous lawsuit. I might have sympathy if those ingredients aren’t declared and had to be discovered via lab tests or an allergic reaction. Ultimately, preservative free is like all-natural — food buzzwords that take advantage of ingredient ignorance for marketing purposes. Neither term is regulated or defined by the FDA.
A
I don’t think it should matter if they mainlined preservatives in their free time. If I get mesothelioma from a product that had undisclosed asbestos in it, is it a defense for the company to point out that I willingly consumed alcohol, a known carcinogen, and therefore must not really care about getting cancer?
E
This is certainly a reasonable argument in some cases, but these women are literally quoted in the article as preferring to buy preservative-free foods. They’re the ones making the claim, which makes it likely that Costco would be able to use that as a way to disprove their stated concerns. Also, the fact they state they will continue to purchase the chickens now knowing that it contains the ingredients they were offended by before demonstrates a very thin case on their part. This will absolutely go to some sort of minor settlement.
J
It’s a legal defense, nothing more, nothing less. I’m not at all concerned about 2 natural and FDA approved products being used in the cooking process of a chicken from Costco. This is the very definition of a frivolous lawsuit if Costco can show that they regularly purchase other products full of preservatives. Let’s not turn this into a game of what-ifs and hypotheticals. Let’s deal with the facts of the case. You know, like a court of law would…
M
I don’t think these ingredients were present because of their preservative nature. Salt is a preservative. Should anything salted be considered as having preservatives?
J
That’s also Costco’s defense as stated in the article. These two ingredients are used for their benefits in the cooking process, not as preservatives. Then what happens with the refrigerated chickens? The cold is technically a preservative. So cold chickens prior to cooking are now not in accordance with the labels. Where does it end?
A
Lawsuits like this are an entire industry in the US. All they need is for some “expert” to say those ingredients could have preserving effects because they are used to do the same in another food product.
B
>I don’t think it should matter if they mainlined preservatives in their free time. It would absolutely matter. You have to show that you were harmed by those preservatives that Costco “tricked” you into consuming. If you’re buying a bunch of stuff like bacon and chicken nuggets at the same time, which also contain sodium phosphate, then how can you prove it was the specific chicken sodium phosphate that you were tricked into eating which harmed you, and not the bacon sodium phosphate that you willingly consumed? If you slip 1 Tylenol into my food, and then after dinner I chug a whole bottle of Tylenol, and then my liver fails, is that your fault? After all, you tricked me into consuming acetaminophen, which can cause liver failure when consumed in excess. But how likely is it that the 1 pill you tricked me into consuming is what caused the harm, compared to the 100 pills I consumed voluntarily? Also – assuming you can even prove harm at all to begin with. Every restaurant in the world would go out of business if they got sued every time they salted a dish past a customer’s liking. As for your example, alcohol consumption isn’t associated with mesothelioma. If you got liver cancer after drinking a fifth a day for 20 years straight, then I don’t think the asbestos exposure had much to do with it. They’re 2 different diseases, with different causes and affecting different organs (lungs vs liver).
F
Normally I’d agree with you, but this case doesn’t have the pattern that so many have. The example you gave is different cancers with different causes. It would be silly of either side to bring it up, and would probably be inadmissible. If you sued your landlord over mesothelioma because of asbestos tiles your apartment, it wouldn’t be ridiculous if your landlord’s lawyer brought up your penchant for wearing asbestos lined track suits.
M
If you continue to consume the same exact product after filing the lawsuit (and it’s not addictive or anything) your lawsuit should absolutely be tossed. How is this even a question?
P
If their entire argument is “we wouldn’t have bought it if we knew” doesn’t admitting they’ll buy it again undercut their claimed “damages”?
J
But they also claim they wouldn’t have bought the chicken if they knew it had preservatives lmao
C
And then admitted that they will still buy them. So, which is it? They wouldn’t have, but they happily will?
R
They just want free money. Any competent judge would throw this horseshit away. But in our timeline? Who knows; maybe it’ll get to the supreme court and they’ll force Costco to settle for a billion dollars in damages.
K
Some people need more strife in their lives. I swear, it’s like when people get bored they go after the little treats us poors have.
R
Neither of these ingredients are preservatives in the sense most people think of. They don’t prevent bacterial growth. They do make the chicken more palatable for a longer time. Some folks have pointed out that salt is a preservative, but I believe you need a much higher concentration of salt to preserve meat. Here it is only a seasoning.
D
Costco was obviously using these two additives as seasoning not preservatives!!
H
That actually sounds like a strategy they could use in court. Ingredients have multiple purposes.
B
They were using them primarily to reduce loss of moisture.
D
There was supposed to be humor in that, but i guess i should’ve /s
Additional Sources:
Men’s Journal – Costco and Nike released the Kirkland x Nike SB Dunk Shoes. Are They Worth It?
