Seven consumers from six states have filed a class-action lawsuit against Costco, accusing the retail giant of selling a popular organic protein powder without warning customers that it allegedly contained dangerous levels of lead, arsenic, and cadmium. The federal complaint, filed this week, targets Orgain Organic Plant-Based Protein Powder, a product still available on Costco's website and in its warehouses, and claims one sample's lead content exceeded California's safety threshold by more than 600 percent.
No recall has been issued. The product remains on shelves. And the FDA, which does not routinely test or approve supplements before they reach consumers, has taken no public action.
For millions of health-conscious shoppers who trust Costco's brand and the USDA Organic seal, the allegations raise a blunt question: what exactly are you putting in your morning shake?
The complaint, first reported by the Daily Mail, names Costco as the sole defendant. It centers on two flavors of Orgain Organic Plant-Based Protein Powder, Vanilla Bean and Creamy Chocolate Fudge, sold both in Costco warehouses and through the company's online store.
Plaintiffs allege that independent laboratory testing found lead, arsenic, and cadmium in protein powders purchased directly from Costco. The most alarming figure in the complaint: one sample's lead levels allegedly exceeded California's "safe harbor" threshold by more than 600 percent.
The complaint also leans on a 2025 Consumer Reports investigation, which found that Orgain's vanilla protein powder exceeded that publication's own "level of concern" for lead. The World Health Organization has stated there is no known safe exposure level to heavy metals like lead, a fact the plaintiffs cite to underscore the stakes.
The lawsuit seeks damages for consumers who purchased the supplements and a court order requiring Costco to disclose heavy metal content and stop selling the products without adequate warnings.
At the heart of the complaint is a gap between what Costco and Orgain told consumers and what plaintiffs say the product actually contained. The lawsuit alleges shoppers were misled by the USDA Organic seal and marketing language including "the power of clean," "good, clean nutrition," and "quality ingredients."
The complaint states that consumers "could not learn of the inclusion of heavy metals in the contaminated products unless Costco included a proper disclosure." No such disclosure appeared on the packaging or at the point of sale, the plaintiffs contend.
Steve Berman, the attorney representing the plaintiffs, framed the case as a breach of consumer trust in one of America's most popular retailers:
"These same health-conscious consumers have unknowingly ingested alarming levels of toxic heavy metals, lead, cadmium and arsenic, again and again, trusting that Costco's quality assurance would not allow something like this to happen."
Berman added a sharper point about what Costco should have known:
"Consumers nationwide trust Costco. Based on our investigation and product testing, we believe Costco knew or should have known that its Orgain protein powder failed to live up to its promises of safety and quality."
These are allegations, not proven facts. The case has not been adjudicated. But the specific testing figures cited in the complaint, particularly the 600 percent lead exceedance, will be difficult for Costco to wave away if they hold up in discovery.
The Costco protein powder lawsuit lands amid a broader pattern of food safety failures reaching American consumers. Costco itself was recently caught up in a recall of frozen cheese bread over salmonella risk, raising questions about the company's supply chain vetting.
The supplement industry occupies a particularly weak spot in the federal regulatory framework. The FDA does not routinely test or approve supplements before they hit store shelves. That means the burden of ensuring a product is safe falls almost entirely on the manufacturer and the retailer, in this case, Orgain and Costco.
When the regulator is absent, the retailer's brand becomes the consumer's only guarantee. Costco has built enormous loyalty on the implicit promise that its buyers screen products rigorously. The lawsuit challenges that promise directly.
Contaminated products reaching store shelves nationwide is not a new story in American retail. But the supplement aisle, where consumers are spending real money on products marketed as healthy, may be the most vulnerable category of all, precisely because federal oversight is thinnest there.
The Daily Mail reported that it reached out to Costco for comment. No response has been published. Orgain, the product manufacturer, has not issued a public statement regarding the lawsuit or the testing results, based on available reporting.
Meanwhile, the product remains for sale. On Orgain's own website, a one-time purchase of the vanilla bean protein powder costs approximately $38. On Costco's website and app, the product is still listed as a members-only item.
No recall has been initiated by either company. The complaint filed in federal court does not indicate that Costco has taken any voluntary corrective action.
The silence is notable. When a lawsuit alleges that a product exceeded California's lead safety threshold by a factor of six, consumers deserve a straight answer, not corporate radio silence.
This case also puts a spotlight on a structural problem that Congress has never adequately addressed. Dietary supplements are a multi-billion-dollar industry operating under a regulatory framework that essentially trusts companies to police themselves. The FDA steps in after the fact, after consumers have already ingested whatever is in the bottle.
Recalls of contaminated food products at least demonstrate the system catching problems, even if belatedly. In the supplement space, there is often no catch at all unless a private lawsuit or an independent investigation forces the issue.
That is precisely what happened here. It took a Consumer Reports investigation in 2025 and independent testing by plaintiffs' attorneys to surface the alleged contamination. The federal government did not flag it. Costco did not flag it. The USDA Organic seal, which plaintiffs say gave consumers false confidence, certainly did not flag it.
The seven plaintiffs from six states are asking a federal court to do what the regulatory system did not: hold the retailer accountable and force disclosure.
Significant questions hang over this case. The specific federal court where the lawsuit was filed has not been publicly identified in reporting so far. The names of the seven plaintiffs and their home states have not been disclosed. The exact dollar amount of damages sought is not stated in available reporting.
Perhaps most importantly, it remains unclear whether Costco had prior knowledge of the heavy metal content. Berman's statement, "we believe Costco knew or should have known", is a legal claim, not a proven fact. Discovery will determine whether internal communications, testing records, or supplier agreements support that allegation.
Grocery retailers have faced similar accountability questions in other recent cases involving undisclosed risks in products sold under trusted brand names. The outcome here could set a marker for how courts treat the retailer's duty to verify supplier claims in the supplement category.
It also remains unknown who conducted the independent testing cited in the complaint, apart from Consumer Reports. The methodology and chain of custody for those samples will likely become contested ground as the litigation proceeds.
Costco sells more than protein powder. It sells trust. The membership model, the curated product selection, the Kirkland Signature house brand, all of it rests on the idea that Costco's buyers have done the homework so the consumer doesn't have to.
If the allegations in this lawsuit prove true, that trust was misplaced, at least in the supplement aisle. Consumers paid a premium for a product wrapped in organic branding and clean-nutrition marketing, and allegedly got lead, arsenic, and cadmium for their trouble.
When the government won't test what's on the shelf, and the retailer won't disclose what's in the bottle, the consumer is the one left holding the risk. That's not a marketplace. That's a gamble.