Buyers of Kirkland Signature tequila labeled “100% de Agave” were the proposed class in a lawsuit alleging Costco sold tequila made partly from non-agave alcohol, but a federal judge in Seattle dismissed the case with prejudice on October 16, 2026. The plaintiffs’ lawyer says they will appeal; there is no settlement and nothing to claim.
Allegations Only · No Settlement Yet
This article describes a class action lawsuit that a federal court dismissed. The statements below about the tequila are unproven allegations; the court did not find that Costco’s labels were false or that its tequila was adulterated, and Costco has not been found liable. There is nothing to claim. This page is informational and is not legal advice.
What Is This About?
Thirteen consumers sued Costco Wholesale Corporation on November 14, 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington in Seattle. The case is Salisbury v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, No. 2:25-cv-02277, assigned to U.S. District Judge Kymberly K. Evanson. Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP represents the plaintiffs. An amended complaint filed March 9, 2026 brought the group to fourteen plaintiffs in nine states who bought the tequila between 2019 and 2025.The suit covered five Kirkland Signature tequilas — Blanco, Reposado, Añejo, Cristalino and Extra Añejo — each labeled “100% de Agave” and “Hecho en Jalisco, Mexico.” Under Mexico’s official tequila standard, a tequila labeled 100% agave may be fermented only from Blue Weber agave sugars, while ordinary tequila may get up to 49% of its sugars from other sources. Costco’s tequila is produced by the Santa Lucia distillery in Tesistán, Jalisco, according to the complaint.
Free settlement alerts
Get notified when new class actions open to claims
Join thousands of readers who get the latest class action settlements you may qualify for — delivered straight to your inbox.
What Did the Lawsuit Allege?
The plaintiffs alleged that the Kirkland tequilas contain cheaper non-agave alcohol despite the “100% de Agave” label, and that they would not have bought the tequila, or would have paid less, had they known. Their evidence was a laboratory method called SNIF-NMR, which measures the carbon isotope signature of the alcohol to identify the plant its sugars came from. The amended complaint said bottles bought at Costco stores in Florida and California returned readings between −11.8‰ and −13.6‰, beyond the −10.0‰ benchmark it cited for agave-only alcohol, and that none of the tested samples met the threshold.The complaint brought claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), alleging an “Adulterated Tequila Enterprise” that included Costco and its distiller, along with a nationwide class under the Washington Consumer Protection Act, state consumer-law classes and claims for negligence and unjust enrichment. These allegations were never tested on the merits.
Why Did the Judge Dismiss the Case?
Judge Evanson did not decide whether the tequila was adulterated. She held that a U.S. court should not rule on the question because Mexican authorities already had. In an October 27, 2025 decision on a complaint by a private group, Agaveros 100 Por Ciento de Origen Mexicano, Mexico’s General Directorate of Standards concluded that SNIF-NMR testing was not “competent or sufficient evidence” of a violation of the tequila standard and dismissed the complaint as “inadmissible and unfounded.” Mexico’s Attorney General’s office later declined to bring criminal charges over a related complaint that named Costco’s Mexican subsidiary, relying on lab analyses by the Tequila Regulatory Council (CRT), the body that certifies tequila as 100% agave.The court found the claims barred under two doctrines. Under international comity, it declined to hear the case out of deference to Mexico’s authority over tequila production and certification. Under the act of state doctrine, it reasoned that a ruling for the plaintiffs would require it to declare invalid the CRT’s certification of the products and the Mexican regulator’s rejection of SNIF-NMR testing. The judge pointed out that the complaint itself described the CRT as “the sole gatekeeper for what qualifies as ‘100% Agave’ [T]equila.” The order notes that U.S. consumers can file labeling complaints with the federal Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau.
The dismissal is with prejudice. The judge denied leave to amend because the problem “cannot be cured,” and the ruling disposes of every claim, including RICO.
What Happens Next?
Hagens Berman partner Steve Berman called the ruling “dead wrong” and said the plaintiffs intend to appeal, arguing the court should not have accepted the Mexican findings as true, according to a Seattle Times report published by The Spokesman-Review. An appeal would go to the Ninth Circuit. Costco had argued in its motion that a U.S. case would interfere with Mexico’s authority over what counts as 100% agave tequila; it did not respond to the Seattle Times’ request for comment. Unless the dismissal is reversed on appeal, there will be no class, settlement or claim process.Questions
What was the Costco Kirkland tequila lawsuit about?
Salisbury v. Costco Wholesale Corporation alleged that Kirkland Signature tequilas labeled “100% de Agave” contain cheaper non-agave alcohol, based on SNIF-NMR lab testing commissioned for the case. The claims were never decided on the merits, and Costco was not found liable.
Why was the Costco tequila lawsuit dismissed?
On October 16, 2026, Judge Kymberly K. Evanson ruled that the international comity and act of state doctrines bar the case, because Mexico’s tequila regulators had certified the products and rejected SNIF-NMR testing as proof of adulteration. The dismissal is with prejudice.
Which Kirkland tequilas were part of the lawsuit?
The suit covered Kirkland Signature Blanco, Reposado, Añejo, Cristalino and Extra Añejo tequilas, all labeled “100% de Agave.”
Can I get money from the Costco tequila lawsuit?
No. The case was dismissed before any class was certified, and there is no settlement or claim form. The plaintiffs have said they plan to appeal.
Sources
• Order Granting Motion to Dismiss With Prejudice, Salisbury v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, No. 2:25-cv-02277-KKE (W.D. Wash. October 16, 2026), Dkt. No. 50• Class action complaint, Salisbury v. Costco Wholesale Corporation (W.D. Wash., filed November 14, 2025)
• The Spokesman-Review (October 19, 2026), including the plaintiffs’ appeal plans
• Bloomberg Law (October 19, 2026)
