Commitment and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Commitment and Contingencies	Aug. 31, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 10—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 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 actual 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 an immaterial accrual with respect to some 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 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 (No. 23cv011351), removed to federal court, No. 2:24-cv-00300 (E.D. Cal.). A second amended complaint was filed, which the Company has moved to dismiss. In January 2024, the same plaintiff filed a related Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) representative action, seeking civil penalties and asserting the same alleged underlying Labor Code violations and an additional suitable seating claim. In May 2024, the plaintiff filed an amended PAGA complaint; the Company has denied the material allegations of the complaint and filed a motion to stay the action. The motion was granted on December 18, 2024. In August 2024, an employee filed an action under PAGA against the Company, alleging claims for penalties for various alleged violations of the California Labor Code. Nader v. Costco (No. CV-24-006198; Stanislaus County Superior Court). An amended complaint was filed in November 2024. In February 2025 the court granted the Company’s motion to strike portions of the complaint. The plaintiff filed a further amended complaint; the Company's motion to strike a portion of this complaint was granted on May 13, 2025. 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 by one county in Georgia are pending, and claims filed by certain cities and counties in New York are pending in state court, as are claims by certain county district attorneys in Pennsylvania. Claims against the Company in state courts in New Jersey, Oklahoma, Utah, and Arizona have been dismissed. Claims against the Company in federal court in Georgia and Florida have been dismissed. The Company is defending all of the pending matters except for a small number that have been resolved for immaterial amounts. Between September 25 and October 31, 2023, five class action suits were filed against the Company alleging privacy law violations stemming from pixel trackers on Costco.com: Birdwell v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. C23-02416, Contra Costa County Superior Court; and Scott v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 2:23-cv-08808 (C.D. Cal.), now consolidated with R.S. v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 2:23-cv-01628 (W.D. Wash.); Groves, et ano., v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 2:23-cv-01662 (W.D. Wash.), and Castillo v. Costco Wholesale Corp., under No. 2:34-cv-01548 (W.D. Wash.). The Castillo plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on January 26, 2024, which seeks damages, equitable relief and attorneys’ fees under various statutes, including the Washington Consumer Protection Act, Washington Privacy Act, Washington Uniform Health Care Information Act, Electronic Communications Privacy Act, California Invasion of Privacy Act, and California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act. The consolidated complaint also alleges breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, conversion, and unjust enrichment. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the Castillo complaint on March 11, 2024. In November 2024 the court denied the motion to dismiss in substantial part. On May 16, 2024, the parties stipulated to stay Birdwell pending resolution of Castillo. On January 2, and August 22, 2024, the Company received related civil investigative demands from the Washington Attorney General's Office. On January 3, 2024, the Company received a related pre-litigation letter from the Los Angeles Office of the County Counsel. The Company is in the process of responding to both agencies. On June 20, 2024, a class-action lawsuit was filed against the Company and Nice-Pak Products, Inc., alleging that Kirkland Signature Fragrance Free Baby Wipes contain 3.7 parts per billion of per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances. The complaint alleges that the label claim that the wipes are “made with naturally derived ingredients” thus violates various state consumer protection and false advertising laws. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, including punitive damages, as well as equitable relief and attorneys' fees and costs. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on August 9, 2024. Bullard, et ano., v. Costco Wholesale Corp., et ano., No. 3:24-cv-03714 (N.D. Cal.). On February 14, 2025, the court granted the motion. An amended complaint was filed; defendants' motion to dismiss this complaint was denied on May 14, 2025. 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. In May 2024 the Company received a Notice of Intent to File Administrative Complaint for Violations of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA is seeking administrative fines for importation, sale and distribution of misbranded devices and unregistered products the government asserts are pesticides under FIFRA. An agreement has been reached to settle the matter for an immaterial amount. 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.

COSTCO WHOLESALE CORP /NEW 10-K