Subway tuna sandwiches remain the main dish of a fishy lawsuit served against the company. Earlier this year, two women accused Subway tuna sandwiches of lacking in tuna.
Two amendments later, the plaintiffs filed their third version about the lack of tuna in Subway’s tuna sandwiches. Instead, the complaint said the tuna sandwiches have chicken, pork, or beef in them.
Third Version Alleges That Subway Tuna Sandwiches Contain Chicken, Pork, of Beef, But No Tuna
The original complaint filed by plaintiffs Karen Dhanowa and Nilima Amin accused the sandwich company of serving tuna sandwiches that do not contain tuna.
After getting a chance to amend their complaint, Dhanowa and Amin resubmitted their lawsuit. This time, they alleged that Subway tuna sandwiches do contain tuna, but it’s 100% sustainably caught albacore and skipjack.
Update From The Editor: Sleepy Joe Biden Urges Americans to Mask Indoors as Omicron Variant Looms
US District Judge Jon dismissed the second version. He said that the complainants did not show they bought Subway tuna sandwiches based on the alleged misrepresentation. He did allow the two to amend their complaint again.
Now, the third version of their complaint, filed earlier this week in San Francisco, accused Subway of having land-based ingredients.
The new lawsuit alleged that lab testing showed that subway tuna sandwiches contain traces of chicken, pork, and beef. They do not contain 100% tuna as advertised.
Subway Indignant, Says It Will Seek Dismissal of Charges
In a statement, the sandwich chain said that it plans to seek dismissal of the third amended complaint filed by the individuals.
Dhanowa and Amin “filed three meritless complaints, changing their story each time,” presumably until they get something.
Subway insisted that its “high-quality, wild-caught, 100% tuna” underwent strict regulations in the United States and around the world.
Since the tuna sandwich case began getting attention in January, the company ran TV ads and launched a website to provide more information about its tuna.
The chain also revamped its menu but left the original tuna sandwich entree alone. An upgrade to the Subway tuna sandwich formula is not necessary.
Testing Conducted By Marine Biologist
The latest lawsuit relied on data from tests made by a marine biologist using 20 tuna sandwich samples taken from 20 Subway branches in Southern California.
According to Dhanowa and Amin, 19 out of the 20 samples tested did not contain any trace of tuna DNA sequences. However, all 20 samples contain sequences of chicken DNA.
In addition, 11 samples contained pork DNA traces, and seven had cattle DNA. The Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of California, Los Angeles conducted the testing.
Tuna Sandwiches Contain Meat That’s Not Tuna
The complaint originated from the fact that many people do not eat red meat and chicken due to dietary or religious reasons.
Some individuals choose to abstain from eating red meat (pork and beef) or chicken meat. Subway mislabeled its tuna sandwiches by advertising them as such.
Amin herself said she ate Subway tuna products more than a hundred times between 2013 to 2019. She always checked the menu to make sure she would only eat tuna and not some other land-based meat.
As a result of the misrepresentation to consumers, the lawsuit seeks unspecified damages for fraud. It also wants Subway to address its violations of California consumer protection laws.
Watch the WION video reporting that sandwich chain Subway accused of deceiving the public:
Have you tried Subway tuna sandwiches? Do you agree that they don’t seem to contain tuna?
Let us know what you think. Share your comments about Subway tuna sandwiches and lawsuits in the section below.