Respected, members of the jury,

Let me begin with a simple question:

Who made the product at issue?

Not Costco.

Costco did not manufacture this mayonnaise. It did not formulate the oil. It did not bottle the product. And, most importantly, there is no evidence before us establishing that Costco knew that the product's avocado oil claim was false or that Costco had reason to know it was false.

The case being presented against Costco sounds straightforward: a product was sold at Costco, a study reportedly found problems with avocado oil authenticity, and therefore Costco should have caught it.

But law and logic require us to take one more step.

What exactly did Costco know? What exactly was Costco required to do? And what evidence proves that Costco failed to do it?

Those questions matter.

The case description itself acknowledges that the underlying UC Davis study has not been independently verified here on a lot by lot basis. We are being asked to move from a reported laboratory finding involving products purchased during 2025-2026 to a conclusion about Costco's responsibility for a particular product.

That is a very significant leap.

Costco's relationship with its suppliers is not a blind one. Costco has published supplier food safety and quality requirements, including mechanisms for supplier validation, certification, auditing and reporting. Costco's system contemplates suppliers being responsible for substantiating claims and third party certification bodies performing audits.

So the question is not simply, “Was the product's label accurate?”

That question may ultimately concern the manufacturer.

The question before you is different:

Has anyone shown, with evidence, that Costco breached a duty by selling this product?

There is a difference between being the retailer who sold a product and being the party who manufactured or deliberately misrepresented that product.

And there is another important distinction.

A supplier control policy is not an admission that every product Costco sells is independently laboratory tested by Costco. In fact, the case description itself acknowledges that Costco does not conduct this testing itself and instead operates through supplier requirements and approved third party auditing mechanisms.

If a supplier makes a representation, provides the required documentation, passes the applicable audit process, and there is no evidence that Costco knew the representation was false, we cannot simply work backwards from a later allegation and say:

“Costco should have known.”

That is hindsight not proof.

And hindsight is particularly dangerous here.

The reported study is being used to suggest that Costco should somehow have detected a problem before the evidence being discussed today was even available. But a retailer cannot be held responsible merely because, at some later point, someone questions a manufacturer's representation.

If the jury believes the manufacturer made an inaccurate claim, that does not automatically establish that Costco knowingly participated in that misrepresentation.

And if the evidence cannot establish that Costco knew, had reason to know, or failed to comply with an applicable obligation, then the case against Costco cannot rest simply on the size of the company, its reputation, or the fact that it sold the product.

Costco's reputation is not evidence of liability.

Its size is not evidence of liability.

And a product appearing on a Costco shelf is not, by itself, proof that Costco manufactured, formulated, or knowingly misrepresented that product.

At the end of this case, we ask you to separate what is alleged..... from.....what is actually proven

You may find that questions exist about the manufacturer's labeling.

You may find that additional testing would be useful.

But a question is not proof, and suspicion is not evidence.

The evidence must establish Costco's responsibility.....not merely the existence of a disputed product claim.

And when you examine this case carefully, you will see that the central allegation against Costco depends upon assumptions that the evidence does not establish.

For that reason, we ask you to reach the conclusion that Costco should not be held responsible for a manufacturer's alleged labeling or formulation problem merely because Costco sold the product.

The evidence must connect Costco to the wrongdoing.

And in this case, that connection has not been established.

Upvote (2) Downvote (0) Report abuse