In a class action lawsuit filed in California last week, Subway, the fast food giant in Connecticut, is accused of fraud and false advertising about the contents of its tuna sandwiches, which, according to the case, is an “entirely non-tuna” mixture is what defendants mixed against. looks like tuna and mimics its texture. “
Subway denied the allegations, saying in a statement to NBC News that it’s delivering 100% cooked tuna to its restaurants, which is mixed with mayonnaise and used in freshly made sandwiches.
“These unfounded allegations threaten our franchisees, small business owners, who are working tirelessly to undermine the high standards that Subway sets for all of its products, including tuna,” said Maggie Truax, Director of Global PR. NBC News. “Given the facts, the lawsuit is a reckless and improper attack on Subway’s trademark and goodwill, and on the existence of its California franchisees. Pursued without adequate investigation.”
In the course of dozens of pages of the lawsuit, plaintiffs Karen Dhanowa and Nilima Amin allege that they want to represent a class of Subway customers who bought tuna sandwiches that, according to them, have ‘all traces of tuna as a spare. or predominant ingredient. “
The January 21 claim, filed in the Northern District Court of California in the U.S. District Court, claims that “independent testing repeatedly confirms the plaintiffs’ claims,” but does not mention where these tests were conducted, when or by whom. There is no specific evidence to support these allegations.
Dhanowa did not respond to NBC News’ requests for comment by phone call and text message. Amin did not respond to a request for comment from NBC News for comment.
The charges of fraud according to Dhanowa and Amin partly say that the tuna sandwich is more expensive than other sandwiches on the menu.
“If plaintiffs and other members of the class knew that the products did not contain tuna as an ingredient, they would not have bought the products, or would have paid significantly less money for them,” the case reads.
Noting that the plaintiffs had already consumed the sandwiches in 2020, the claim states that the plaintiffs did not test the tuna in the sandwiches they actually ate.
“When they each purchased and consumed the products, the plaintiffs did not take steps to verify the components of the products, or the products contained tuna as an ingredient.”
In an email, Alex Brown, managing attorney for Lanier Law Firm, which filed the lawsuit, reiterated its demand that independent tests of multiple samples sold at various locations show the absence of tuna or even a fish protein. .
“We are confident that our clients will prevail when they get their day in court,” Brown said.
Johnny Cargill, a spokesman for the Lanier law firm, declined to comment on the tests.
The Connecticut-based sandwich giant Milford, for its part, said the pack was ‘part of a trend’ to ‘target the food industry in an effort to make a name for itself in that space’.
Subway will vigorously defend itself against these and any other unfounded attempts to misjudge and slander the high quality products that Subway and its franchisees offer to their customers in California and around the world and intend to pursue these claims by all “They are not being fired immediately,” Truax said.
