If you enjoy Subway’s tuna sandwich, you might want to reconsider before reading further. The fast-food chain is currently facing a lawsuit from two individuals in California, claiming that their tuna sub isn’t made from actual tuna.
The lawsuit, filed on January 21 in the U.S. Northern District of California by two residents, asserts that Subway Restaurants Inc. has engaged in “intentional and negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, common-law fraud, and violated federal and state laws against false advertising.” The plaintiffs allege that the sandwich does not contain any tuna whatsoever.
Subway describes its tuna sub as “freshly baked bread” filled with “flaked tuna mixed with creamy mayo and your choice of fresh veggies.” However, according to the lawsuit, the sandwich is “completely devoid of tuna as an ingredient.” The claims include that the chain has “packaged, advertised, marketed, distributed, and sold the Products to consumers” based on the false assertion that the products were made with tuna. Independent testing allegedly showed that the sandwich is “composed of a blend of various substances that do not qualify as tuna, yet have been manipulated to resemble it.”
Subway has responded to the allegations, asserting through a spokesperson that they exclusively use wild-caught tuna. “The claims made in the complaint filed in California are simply not true. We deliver 100% cooked tuna to our restaurants, combined with mayonnaise, and used in our freshly prepared sandwiches, wraps, and salads that our customers enjoy,” the statement declared, labeling the lawsuit as “baseless.” The company emphasized, “This lawsuit is a reckless and improper attack on Subway’s brand and on the livelihoods of its franchisees in California.”
In addition to the tuna controversy, Subway has also faced scrutiny for incorporating azodicarbonamide in its bread, a substance approved by the FDA for use in food but also found in yoga mats. The company has announced plans to completely eliminate this ingredient from its bread.
The plaintiffs in the tuna case, who are seeking class-action status and a jury trial, are requesting “appropriate equitable and injunctive relief, restitution or disgorgement, and reasonable litigation expenses and attorneys’ fees.” Here’s hoping this matter is resolved swiftly, with the assurance that no tunas were harmed in the making of their sandwiches.
For more insights, check out this related post on home insemination. Additionally, if you’re exploring options for your fertility journey, Make A Mom offers great resources. You can also find useful information at this excellent source for pregnancy and home insemination.
Search Queries:
- Subway tuna lawsuit details
- Is Subway’s tuna real?
- What is in Subway’s tuna sandwich?
- Subway food safety concerns
- Alternatives to Subway tuna sandwich
Summary:
Subway is being sued by two California residents who claim their tuna sandwich doesn’t actually contain tuna. The lawsuit alleges false advertising and misrepresentation, with independent tests suggesting the sandwich is made from various substances imitating tuna. Subway has staunchly denied these claims, asserting they use wild-caught tuna in their products. The lawsuit seeks class-action status and claims for damages.
Keyphrase: Subway tuna lawsuit
Tags: [“home insemination kit”, “home insemination syringe”, “self insemination”]