Published
August 4, 2026
A class action filed in Costco's home district says the Orgain Organic Protein Powder sold in its warehouses contains lead, cadmium and arsenic that the packaging never mentions. It is the first case in the protein-powder heavy-metals wave to sue the store rather than the brand.
Allegations Only · No Settlement Yet
This article describes a class action complaint. The statements below are unproven allegations. Costco has not been found liable, has not yet responded to the complaint, there is no certified class, and nothing to claim at this time. Orgain is not a defendant in this case. No product has been recalled and no court or regulator has found the product unsafe. This page is informational and is not legal or medical advice.
What Is This About?
A proposed class action accuses Costco of selling a protein powder marketed as clean while, according to laboratory testing commissioned by the plaintiffs, it contained detectable lead, cadmium and arsenic. The complaint, Barton v. Costco Wholesale Corporation (Case No. 2:26-cv-02364, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle), was filed on July 7, 2026 by seven named plaintiffs from six states, represented by Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro and Hecht Partners.The products are Orgain Organic Protein Powder in Vanilla Bean and Creamy Chocolate Fudge. The complaint's argument is not that Costco added anything to them. It is that Costco sold them with its own point-of-sale marketing calling them "good, clean nutrition" made with "cleaner ingredients" to "higher standards," never disclosed that testing finds heavy metals in products like these, and never tested or required its supplier to test. On that theory, buyers paid a premium for a purity claim they did not receive. Costco has not yet responded, and the allegations are unproven.
Status
Complaint Filed · July 7, 2026
Barton v. Costco Wholesale Corporation · U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington at Seattle
Products Named
Orgain Organic Protein Powder — Vanilla Bean and Creamy Chocolate Fudge
Sold at Costco warehouses and Costco.com · Orgain itself is not a defendant
Core Allegation
"Clean nutrition" marketing without disclosing heavy metals
12 counts under Washington, California, Illinois, Minnesota, Ohio and Texas consumer laws, plus fraudulent concealment
Proposed Classes
Nationwide buyers, plus 6 state subclasses
Household purchases only, not resale · WA, CA, IL, MN, OH, TX subclasses
Can I Claim?
No — nothing to claim yet
No settlement, no fund, no claim form; classes not certified
Why This One Sues the Store, Not the Brand
More than a dozen heavy-metals suits have been filed against protein powder companies since early 2026. Our protein powder heavy-metals overview tracks that wave, which so far has named manufacturers such as Huel, Naked Nutrition, Jocko Fuel and OWYN. This case is the first we have covered that skips the manufacturer entirely and sues the retailer.The complaint builds that theory on control. It alleges Costco writes and controls the product detail pages on Costco.com, where the marketing claims appear; that Costco sells the products directly to consumers in roughly 600 warehouses and online; and that as a retailer with more than $240 billion in annual revenue and sophisticated supply-chain and quality-control operations, it had both the resources and the ability to test for heavy metals or require its supplier to do so. The complaint alleges it did neither.
That framing also explains where the case was filed. Costco is headquartered in Issaquah, Washington, and the complaint alleges the decisions to stock the products and to approve the website copy were made there — which is why the lead claim runs under the Washington Consumer Protection Act and why a nationwide class is pleaded under Washington law.
What the Testing Showed
The complaint reports results from testing commissioned by the plaintiffs and their counsel, with confirmatory testing by Microbac Laboratories, which it describes as an ISO/IEC 17025 accredited lab. These are the plaintiffs' figures. Costco has not responded to them, and the companies in these cases typically dispute the testing methodology.| Sample | Lead | Cadmium | Arsenic |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vanilla Bean | 3.37 µg | 1.19 µg | 0.735 µg |
| Vanilla Bean | 0.823 µg | 1.15 µg | 0.577 µg |
| Creamy Chocolate Fudge | 1.70 µg | 3.45 µg | 0.874 µg |
| Creamy Chocolate Fudge | 2.30 µg | 2.75 µg | 0.920 µg |
| Creamy Chocolate Fudge | 1.03 µg | 3.52 µg | 0.710 µg |
The complaint leads with the lead numbers, and one figure in particular: the 3.37 micrograms per serving in a Vanilla Bean sample, which it says exceeds California's Proposition 65 daily safe-harbor level for lead of 0.5 micrograms by about 674 percent.
Worth reading alongside that: the complaint also states the Proposition 65 oral thresholds for the other two metals — 4.1 micrograms per day for cadmium and 10 micrograms per day for inorganic arsenic. Every cadmium and arsenic reading in its own table falls below those figures. The lead results are the ones that carry the case.
What "Exceeds Prop 65" Actually Means
This is the part most coverage of these cases gets wrong, so it is worth stating plainly.Proposition 65's Maximum Allowable Dose Level for lead is 0.5 micrograms per day. It is a warning threshold set deliberately far below federal action levels, with a large safety margin built in. Exceeding it can trigger an obligation to put a warning on the label. It is not a finding that a product is unsafe, that it caused anyone harm, or that selling it is illegal. A number that sounds alarming as a percentage is measuring distance from a conservative warning trigger, not from a danger line.
It also matters that heavy metals in plant-based protein are generally environmental. Plants take up lead and cadmium from soil, which is why plant proteins test higher than dairy-based ones as a category, and why these suits target non-disclosure rather than claiming anyone added anything. Our overview page has a fuller explanation of what the Prop 65 comparisons do and don't establish. The same distinction came up in the Quest protein shake lead lawsuit.
The Published Testing the Complaint Relies On
Two independent reports sit behind the case, and both predate it.The Clean Label Project, a nonprofit that tests consumer products, published a study in January 2025 of 160 top-selling protein powders. The complaint says it found 47 percent exceeded Proposition 65 limits for heavy metals, that 79 percent of organic protein powders exceeded the Prop 65 lead level, and that 41 percent tested at more than twice that level. Neither of the products at issue appears on the group's list of powders certified as clean.
Consumer Reports published its own testing in October 2025, covering 23 protein products. The complaint says more than two-thirds exceeded the organization's level of concern for lead, and that plant-based powders averaged lead levels nine times higher than dairy-based ones. Consumer Reports rated the Orgain Organic Plant-Based Protein Powder in Vanilla Bean at 143 percent of its level of concern and categorized it as okay to eat occasionally, suggesting a limit of about 4¾ servings per week — a caution, not a warning to stop.
The Organic Label Argument
One strand of the complaint deals with the USDA Organic seal on the packaging, and it makes a point consumers may not know.Organic certification governs synthetic pesticides, fertilizers and genetically modified organisms. It does not test for or certify the absence of heavy metals. The complaint alleges the seal therefore creates an impression of purity the certification never actually promises, and that combined with the surrounding "clean" marketing it produces a misleading net impression. The Clean Label Project figure the complaint cites cuts the same way: organic powders tested worse for lead than the field as a whole, not better.
The Regulatory Gap
A question that comes up on every one of these cases: if there is lead in it, why is it on the shelf?Because there is no rule against it. The FDA does not review, approve or test dietary supplements before they are sold. There are no federal limits for lead, cadmium or arsenic in protein powder, and no regulation requiring heavy-metal content to appear on a supplement label. The FDA has set limits for other things — 5 parts per billion for lead in bottled water, guidance levels for lead in juice and candy, action levels for processed foods for babies and young children — but protein powder falls outside all of them.
That gap is closing slowly. California introduced Senate Bill 1033 in February 2026, which would require testing and public disclosure of heavy metals in protein products sold in the state; as of this writing it had not been enacted. And on June 8, 2026, the Texas Attorney General opened an industry-wide investigation into protein powder manufacturers under the state's deceptive trade practices act, focused on undisclosed heavy-metal contamination. The complaint cites both.
The Twelve Counts
The case is unusually broad for a consumer suit at this stage. It pleads:• Washington Consumer Protection Act, for the nationwide class or alternatively a Washington subclass. This is the lead claim and the one that carries treble damages.
• California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act.
• Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.
• Four separate Minnesota statutes — the Unlawful Trade Practices Act, the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the False Statement in Advertising Act and the Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act.
• Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act.
• Texas Deceptive Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act.
• Fraudulent concealment under Washington law, for the nationwide class.
The complaint also spends several pages arguing in advance that federal food-labeling law does not preempt these claims, on the reasoning that it challenges Costco's own voluntary marketing statements rather than seeking to enforce any federal labeling requirement. Preemption is a standard first defense in food and supplement cases, and pleading against it up front signals the plaintiffs expect it.
Who Is Covered by the Proposed Classes?
The nationwide class, as pleaded, is everyone who bought the named Orgain Organic Protein Powder products from a Costco warehouse or Costco.com for household use rather than resale, going back to the start of the applicable limitations period. Six state subclasses cover the same purchases made in Washington, California, Illinois, Minnesota, Ohio and Texas.Excluded are Costco and its officers, directors, employees and affiliates, the judges assigned to the case and their immediate families, anyone who timely opts out, and any entity Costco controls. The complaint says membership runs into the thousands and that members can be identified from Costco's own membership and point-of-sale records, since every purchase is tied to a member number. That last point is worth noting: unlike most consumer class actions, this one would not depend on people finding receipts.
No class has been certified, so the definitions could change as the case proceeds — or the case could be dismissed.
What the Lawsuit Seeks
The complaint asks the court to certify the classes, award actual damages measured by the price premium, and award treble damages up to the maximum the Washington Consumer Protection Act allows. It quantifies the premium by comparison: the products sold at about $0.79 to $0.80 per ounce, while the complaint lists competing powders that tested at non-detectable or near-zero heavy-metal levels selling for as little as $0.42 per ounce.It also seeks an injunction requiring Costco to disclose the presence and levels of heavy metals in these products and to stop selling them without that disclosure, plus punitive damages, attorneys' fees, costs and interest. The plaintiffs demand a jury trial. Notably, several plaintiffs say they would buy the products again if they could be confident about the contents — a framing that supports the request for disclosure rather than removal.
All of this is relief requested on unproven allegations. Nothing has been awarded.
Is There a Settlement or Claim Form?
No. This is a lawsuit at the complaint stage, not a settlement.That means:
• There is no settlement fund.
• There is no claim form.
• There is no payout and no deadline to act.
• Costco members do not need to sign up or register for anything.
For money to reach anyone, the case would have to survive Costco's expected motion to dismiss, including the preemption argument, then win class certification, and then settle or prevail at trial. That takes years and often does not happen. Be cautious of any site claiming you can file a Costco protein powder claim today. If you have receipts or Costco order history for these products, keeping them is reasonable, though the complaint suggests Costco's own records would identify purchasers.
Should You Stop Using It?
This is a consumer economic case, not a personal injury case. None of the plaintiffs allege the product made them sick, and the damages theory is that they overpaid — not that they were harmed. No product has been recalled, and no regulator or court has found these powders unsafe.What to do with that is a decision for you and your doctor, and nothing here is medical advice. The most useful data point is probably the Consumer Reports rating the complaint itself cites: okay to eat occasionally, with a suggested ceiling of a few servings a week, rather than a recommendation to stop. Readers who are pregnant, nursing, or buying for children may want to weigh it differently, since the health agencies quoted in the complaint consistently describe children and developing fetuses as the most sensitive to lead exposure.
What Happens Next
Costco will respond, most likely with a motion to dismiss raising preemption, challenging whether "clean nutrition" is an actionable representation or non-actionable puffery, and disputing the plaintiffs' testing. If the case survives, it moves to discovery — where what Costco knew about heavy metals in the products it stocks, and whether it ever asked, becomes the central question — and then to class certification.Two outside developments could reshape it. If California's SB 1033 passes, disclosure becomes a legal requirement rather than a contested duty. And if the Texas Attorney General's industry investigation produces findings, they would land in the middle of this litigation.
OpenClassActions.com will watch the docket and update this page on a ruling, certification decision, or settlement with a claim form.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is there a Costco Orgain settlement or claim form?
No. This is a newly filed class action complaint, not a settlement. There is no settlement fund, no claim form, and no payout. Costco has not been found liable, no class has been certified, and there is nothing to claim at this time.
What does the lawsuit allege?
That Orgain Organic Protein Powder sold at Costco contains detectable lead, cadmium and arsenic, and that Costco marketed it with claims such as "good, clean nutrition" and "higher standards" without disclosing the heavy metals or testing for them. It brings twelve counts under Washington, California, Illinois, Minnesota, Ohio and Texas consumer protection laws, plus fraudulent concealment. These are unproven allegations.
Is Orgain a defendant?
No. Costco Wholesale Corporation is the only named defendant. The complaint describes Orgain products and quotes Orgain marketing language that appears on Costco's product pages, but it does not sue the manufacturer. The theory is that Costco, as the retailer, controlled its own point-of-sale marketing and had a duty to test or require testing.
Does "674% over Prop 65" mean the product is dangerous?
No. Proposition 65's daily safe-harbor level for lead is 0.5 micrograms, a warning threshold set far below federal action levels with a large safety margin built in. Exceeding it can trigger a labeling obligation; it is not a finding that a product is unsafe, caused harm, or is illegal to sell. The percentage measures distance from a conservative warning trigger, not from a danger line.
Should I stop using Orgain protein powder?
That is a decision for you and your doctor, and this page is not medical advice. No product has been recalled and no court or regulator has found it unsafe. This is an economic case about disclosure and pricing; no plaintiff claims the product made them sick. Consumer Reports rated the vanilla version okay to eat occasionally rather than unsafe.
Who could be covered by the proposed classes?
Everyone who bought the named Orgain Organic Protein Powder products from a Costco warehouse or Costco.com for household use rather than resale, plus separate subclasses for Washington, California, Illinois, Minnesota, Ohio and Texas. No class has been certified, so the definitions are not final.
Sources
• Barton v. Costco Wholesale Corporation — Class Action Complaint, No. 2:26-cv-02364 (W.D. Wash., filed July 7, 2026).• CourtListener — Costco Wholesale federal docket search
• Clean Label Project — 2025 protein powder heavy-metals study
• Consumer Reports — Protein Powders and Shakes Contain High Levels of Lead (October 2025)
• California OEHHA — Proposition 65 No Significant Risk Levels and Maximum Allowable Dose Levels
• FDA — Lead in Food and Foodwares
• Texas Attorney General — press releases (protein powder industry investigation, June 8, 2026)
• California Legislature — Senate Bill 1033 (heavy-metal testing and disclosure)
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.
For more class actions keep scrolling below.
Status
Complaint Filed — Allegations Only
Case Title
Barton v. Costco Wholesale Corporation
Case Number
2:26-cv-02364
Court
U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington at Seattle
Date Filed
July 7, 2026
Defendant
Costco Wholesale Corporation (Orgain is not a defendant)
Products
Orgain Organic Protein Powder — Vanilla Bean and Creamy Chocolate Fudge
Claims
Washington CPA; California UCL, FAL & CLRA; Illinois ICFA; four Minnesota consumer statutes; Ohio CSPA; Texas DTPA; fraudulent concealment
Official Court Source
CourtListener Docket Search
