Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Nov. 26, 2023
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 8—Commitments and Contingencies Legal Proceedings The Company is involved in many claims, proceedings and litigations arising from its business and property ownership. In accordance with applicable accounting guidance, the Company establishes an accrual for legal proceedings if and when those matters present loss contingencies that are both probable and reasonably estimable. There may be losses in excess of amounts accrued. The Company monitors those matters for developments that would affect the likelihood of a loss (taking into account where applicable indemnification arrangements concerning suppliers and insurers) and the accrued amount, if any, thereof, and adjusts the amount as appropriate. The Company has recorded immaterial accruals with respect to certain matters described below, in addition to other immaterial accruals for matters not described below. If the loss contingency at issue is not both probable and reasonably estimable, the Company does not establish an accrual, but monitors for developments that make the contingency both probable and reasonably estimable. In each case, there is a reasonable possibility that a loss may be incurred, including a loss in excess of the applicable accrual. For matters where no accrual has been recorded, the possible loss or range of loss (including any loss in excess of the accrual) cannot, in the Company's view, be reasonably estimated because, among other things: the remedies or penalties sought are indeterminate or unspecified; the legal and/or factual theories are not well developed; and/or the matters involve complex or novel legal theories or a large number of parties. In September 2023, a former employee filed a class action against the Company alleging claims under California law for failure to pay minimum wage, to pay overtime, to provide meal and rest periods, to provide accurate wage statements, to timely pay final wages, to reimburse employee expenses, and for unfair business practices. Jordan Clower v. Costco Wholesale Corporation (Case No. 1:23-cv-01621). The Company has filed a motion to dismiss. In November 2023, a former employee filed a class action against the Company alleging claims under California law for failure to pay minimum wage, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to reimburse expenses, failure to pay wages when due, and failure to pay sick pay. Martin Reyes v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, Sacramento County Superior Court. (Case No. 23cv011351). The Company has not yet responded to the complaint. In August 2023, a former employee of a third-party staffing company filed a letter with the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency threatening claims under the California Private Attorneys General Act for alleged Labor Code violations consisting of minimum wage and overtime violations, meal and rest period violations, wage statement violations and failure to pay all wages at termination. Yesenia Murillo v. Real Time Staffing Services, LLC and Costco Wholesale Corporation. The Company is named as an alleged joint employer. A complaint has not yet been filed. In October 2023, current and former employees filed suit against the Company asserting collective and class claims on behalf of all “Junior Managers” under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law for failure to pay overtime compensation and for inaccurate wage notices and statements under New York law. Lock et al. v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 2:23-cv-07904; E.D.N.Y.). The Company has not yet responded to the complaint. In October 2023, a current employee filed suit against the Company asserting collective and class claims on behalf of all “supervisors” employed in New Jersey under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New Jersey Wage and Hour Law for failure to pay all hours worked. Shah v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 2:23-cv-21286; D.N.J.) The Company has not yet responded to the complaint. In February 2021, a former employee filed a class action against the Company alleging violations of California Labor Code regarding payment of wages, meal and rest periods, wage statements, reimbursement of expenses, payment of final wages to terminated employees, and for unfair business practices. Edwards v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 5:21-cv-00716: C.D. Cal.). On September 27, 2022, the parties reached a settlement for an immaterial amount. The settlement was granted final court approval on October 20, 2023. In July 2021, a former temporary staffing employee filed a class action against the Company and a staffing company, alleging violations of the California Labor Code regarding payment of wages, meal and rest periods, wage statements, the timeliness of wages and final wages, and for unfair business practices. Dimas v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2021-0006024; San Joaquin Superior Court). The Company has moved to compel arbitration of the plaintiff's individual claims and to dismiss the class action complaint. On September 7, 2021, the same plaintiff filed a separate representative action under the California Private Attorneys General Act, asserting the same Labor Code violations and seeking civil penalties and attorneys' fees. The case has been stayed pending arbitration of the plaintiff's individual claims. In September 2021, an employee filed a class action against the Company alleging violations of the California Labor Code regarding failure to provide sick pay, failure to timely pay wages due at separation from employment, and for violations of California's unfair competition law. De Benning v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 34-2021-00309030-CU-OE-GDS; Sacramento Superior Court). In April 2022, a settlement for an immaterial amount was agreed upon, subject to court approval. Final approval of the settlement was granted on February 10, 2023. A compliance hearing is scheduled for February 9, 2024. In May 2022, an employee filed a PAGA action against the Company, alleging claims under the California Labor Code regarding the payment of wages, meal and rest periods, the timeliness of wages and final wages, wage statements, accurate records and business expenses. Gonzalez v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 22AHCV00255; Los Angeles Superior Court). The Company filed an answer denying the allegations. On October 31, 2023, a settlement was reached for an immaterial amount. The settlement requires court approval. Beginning in December 2017, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated numerous cases concerning the impacts of opioid abuses filed against various defendants by counties, cities, hospitals, Native American tribes, third-party payors, and others. In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation (MDL No. 2804) (N.D. Ohio). Included are cases filed against the Company by counties and cities in Michigan, New Jersey, Oregon, Virginia and South Carolina, a third-party payor in Ohio, and a hospital in Texas, class actions filed on behalf of infants born with opioid-related medical conditions in 40 states, and class actions and individual actions filed on behalf of individuals seeking to recover alleged increased insurance costs associated with opioid abuse in 43 states and American Samoa. Claims against the Company filed in federal court outside the MDL have been asserted by certain counties and cities in Florida and Georgia; claims filed by certain cities and counties in New York are pending in state court. Claims against the Company in state courts in New Jersey, Oklahoma, Utah, and Arizona have been dismissed. The Company is defending all of the pending matters. Members of the Board of Directors, six corporate officers and the Company were defendants in a shareholder derivative action filed in June 2022 related to chicken welfare and alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. Smith, et ano. v. Vachris, et al., Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of King, No, 22-2-08937-7SEA. The complaint sought from the individual defendants' damages, injunctive relief, costs, and attorneys' fees. On March 28, 2023, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the action. The plaintiffs subsequently made a demand that the Board of Directors take various actions, including among other things, pursuing claims against directors and officers of the type asserted in the litigation. A demand review committee of the Board has been appointed to make a recommendation to the Board as to the demand. In February 2023, Go Green Norcal, LLC filed an arbitration demand against the Company. The demand alleged a breach of a supply agreement and sought unspecified damages and cancellation of a loan from the Company. In March 2023, the Company filed its answer, denying any breach by the Company, along with counterclaims against Go Green and an affiliate for breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, and an accounting. In August 2023 the plaintiff asserted that its damages exceed $70 million. Between September 25, 2023, and October 21, 2023, five class action suits were filed against the Company alleging various privacy law violations stemming from pixel trackers on Costco.com. Birdwell v. Costco, Case No. T23-1405, Contra Costa County Superior Court; Castillo v. Costco, Case No. 2:34-cv-01548 (W.D. Wash.); Groves et ano. v. Costco, Case No. 2:23-cv-01662 (W.D. Wash.); R.S. v, Costco, Case No. 2:23-cv-01628; Stock v. Costco, Case No. 2:23-cv-08808 (C.D. Cal.). The complaints seek damages, equitable relief and attorneys’ fees under various statutes, including the Washington Consumer Protection Act, Washington Privacy Act, Electronic Communications Privacy Act, California Invasion of Privacy Act, and California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act. They also allege breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty of confidentiality, unjust enrichment, negligence, and invasion of privacy. The Company has not yet responded to the complaints. In October 2021 the Company received a notice that the Quebec Health Insurance Board had commenced an inquiry to determine whether the Company had given or received improper payments for drugs that are covered by the province's prescription drug program from drug wholesalers, generic drug manufacturers or the independent pharmacist who owns and operates the pharmacies located in the Company's Quebec locations. The inquiry covers a period beginning January 1, 2017. In January 2023 the Company received a Civil Investigative Demand from the U.S. Attorney's Office, Western District of Washington, requesting documents. The government is conducting a False Claims Act investigation concerning whether the Company presented or caused to be presented to the federal government for payment false claims relating to prescription medications. The Company does not believe that any pending claim, proceeding or litigation, either alone or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows; it is possible that an unfavorable outcome of some or all of the matters, however unlikely, could result in a charge that might be material to the results of an individual fiscal quarter or year.

The Company is involved in many claims, proceedings and litigations arising from its business and property ownership. In accordance with applicable accounting guidance, the Company establishes an accrual for legal proceedings if and when those matters present loss contingencies that are both probable and reasonably estimable. There may be losses in excess of amounts accrued. The Company monitors those matters for developments that would affect the likelihood of a loss (taking into account where applicable indemnification arrangements concerning suppliers and insurers) and the accrued amount, if any, thereof, and adjusts the amount as appropriate. The Company has recorded immaterial accruals with

respect to certain matters described below, in addition to other immaterial accruals for matters not described below. If the loss contingency at issue is not both probable and reasonably estimable, the Company does not establish an accrual, but monitors for developments that make the contingency both probable and reasonably estimable. In each case, there is a reasonable possibility that a loss may be incurred, including a loss in excess of the applicable accrual. For matters where no accrual has been recorded, the possible loss or range of loss (including any loss in excess of the accrual) cannot, in the Company's view, be reasonably estimated because, among other things: the remedies or penalties sought are indeterminate or unspecified; the legal and/or factual theories are not well developed; and/or the matters involve complex or novel legal theories or a large number of parties.

In September 2023, a former employee filed a class action against the Company alleging claims under California law for failure to pay minimum wage, to pay overtime, to provide meal and rest periods, to provide accurate wage statements, to timely pay final wages, to reimburse employee expenses, and for unfair business practices. Jordan Clower v. Costco Wholesale Corporation (Case No. 1:23-cv-01621). The Company has filed a motion to dismiss.

In November 2023, a former employee filed a class action against the Company alleging claims under California law for failure to pay minimum wage, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to reimburse expenses, failure to pay wages when due, and failure to pay sick pay. Martin Reyes v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, Sacramento County Superior Court. (Case No. 23cv011351). The Company has not yet responded to the complaint.

In August 2023, a former employee of a third-party staffing company filed a letter with the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency threatening claims under the California Private Attorneys General Act for alleged Labor Code violations consisting of minimum wage and overtime violations, meal and rest period violations, wage statement violations and failure to pay all wages at termination. Yesenia Murillo v. Real Time Staffing Services, LLC and Costco Wholesale Corporation. The Company is named as an alleged joint employer. A complaint has not yet been filed.

In October 2023, current and former employees filed suit against the Company asserting collective and class claims on behalf of all “Junior Managers” under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law for failure to pay overtime compensation and for inaccurate wage notices and statements under New York law. Lock et al. v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 2:23-cv-07904; E.D.N.Y.). The Company has not yet responded to the complaint.

In October 2023, a current employee filed suit against the Company asserting collective and class claims on behalf of all “supervisors” employed in New Jersey under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New Jersey Wage and Hour Law for failure to pay all hours worked. Shah v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 2:23-cv-21286; D.N.J.) The Company has not yet responded to the complaint.

In February 2021, a former employee filed a class action against the Company alleging violations of California Labor Code regarding payment of wages, meal and rest periods, wage statements, reimbursement of expenses, payment of final wages to terminated employees, and for unfair business practices. Edwards v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 5:21-cv-00716: C.D. Cal.). On September 27, 2022, the parties reached a settlement for an immaterial amount. The settlement was granted final court approval on October 20, 2023.

In July 2021, a former temporary staffing employee filed a class action against the Company and a staffing company, alleging violations of the California Labor Code regarding payment of wages, meal and rest periods, wage statements, the timeliness of wages and final wages, and for unfair business practices. Dimas v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2021-0006024; San Joaquin Superior Court). The Company has moved to compel arbitration of the plaintiff's individual claims and to dismiss the class action complaint. On September 7, 2021, the same plaintiff filed a separate representative action under the California Private Attorneys General Act, asserting the same Labor Code violations and seeking civil

In September 2021, an employee filed a class action against the Company alleging violations of the California Labor Code regarding failure to provide sick pay, failure to timely pay wages due at separation from employment, and for violations of California's unfair competition law. De Benning v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 34-2021-00309030-CU-OE-GDS; Sacramento Superior Court). In April 2022, a settlement for an immaterial amount was agreed upon, subject to court approval. Final approval of the settlement was granted on February 10, 2023. A compliance hearing is scheduled for February 9, 2024.

In May 2022, an employee filed a PAGA action against the Company, alleging claims under the California Labor Code regarding the payment of wages, meal and rest periods, the timeliness of wages and final wages, wage statements, accurate records and business expenses. Gonzalez v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 22AHCV00255; Los Angeles Superior Court). The Company filed an answer denying the allegations. On October 31, 2023, a settlement was reached for an immaterial amount. The settlement requires court approval.

Beginning in December 2017, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated numerous cases concerning the impacts of opioid abuses filed against various defendants by counties, cities, hospitals, Native American tribes, third-party payors, and others. In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation (MDL No. 2804) (N.D. Ohio). Included are cases filed against the Company by counties and cities in Michigan, New Jersey, Oregon, Virginia and South Carolina, a third-party payor in Ohio, and a hospital in Texas, class actions filed on behalf of infants born with opioid-related medical conditions in 40 states, and class actions and individual actions filed on behalf of individuals seeking to recover alleged increased insurance costs associated with opioid abuse in 43 states and American Samoa. Claims against the Company filed in federal court outside the MDL have been asserted by certain counties and cities in Florida and Georgia; claims filed by certain cities and counties in New York are pending in state court. Claims against the Company in state courts in New Jersey, Oklahoma, Utah, and Arizona have been dismissed. The Company is defending all of the pending matters.

Members of the Board of Directors, six corporate officers and the Company were defendants in a shareholder derivative action filed in June 2022 related to chicken welfare and alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. Smith, et ano. v. Vachris, et al., Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of King, No, 22-2-08937-7SEA. The complaint sought from the individual defendants' damages, injunctive relief, costs, and attorneys' fees. On March 28, 2023, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the action. The plaintiffs subsequently made a demand that the Board of Directors take various actions, including among other things, pursuing claims against directors and officers of the type asserted in the litigation. A demand review committee of the Board has been appointed to make a recommendation to the Board as to the demand.

In February 2023, Go Green Norcal, LLC filed an arbitration demand against the Company. The demand alleged a breach of a supply agreement and sought unspecified damages and cancellation of a loan from the Company. In March 2023, the Company filed its answer, denying any breach by the Company, along with counterclaims against Go Green and an affiliate for breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, and an accounting. In August 2023 the plaintiff asserted that its damages exceed $70 million.

Between September 25, 2023, and October 21, 2023, five class action suits were filed against the Company alleging various privacy law violations stemming from pixel trackers on Costco.com. Birdwell v. Costco, Case No. T23-1405, Contra Costa County Superior Court; Castillo v. Costco, Case No. 2:34-cv-01548 (W.D. Wash.); Groves et ano. v. Costco, Case No. 2:23-cv-01662 (W.D. Wash.); R.S. v, Costco, Case No. 2:23-cv-01628; Stock v. Costco, Case No. 2:23-cv-08808 (C.D. Cal.). The complaints seek damages, equitable relief and attorneys’ fees under various statutes, including the Washington Consumer Protection Act, Washington Privacy Act, Electronic Communications Privacy Act, California Invasion of Privacy Act, and California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act. They also allege breach of implied

In October 2021 the Company received a notice that the Quebec Health Insurance Board had commenced an inquiry to determine whether the Company had given or received improper payments for drugs that are covered by the province's prescription drug program from drug wholesalers, generic drug manufacturers or the independent pharmacist who owns and operates the pharmacies located in the Company's Quebec locations. The inquiry covers a period beginning January 1, 2017.

In January 2023 the Company received a Civil Investigative Demand from the U.S. Attorney's Office, Western District of Washington, requesting documents. The government is conducting a False Claims Act investigation concerning whether the Company presented or caused to be presented to the federal government for payment false claims relating to prescription medications.

The Company does not believe that any pending claim, proceeding or litigation, either alone or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows; it is possible that an unfavorable outcome of some or all of the matters, however unlikely, could result in a charge that might be material to the results of an individual fiscal quarter or year.