Two women are suing Subway as they claim the popular sandwich chain is serving up tuna… without any tuna.
We all love a good sandwich, but what if you’re tuna didn’t contain any fish at all.
Karen Dhanowa and Nilima Amin of Alameda County filed a lawsuit in San Francisco federal court last week.
They claim Subway is misrepresenting its tuna sandwich. The women say they have performed independent lab tests of samples of tuna taken from several Subway locations across California.
They claim the test results show that the ‘tuna’ is actually a ‘mixture of various concoctions that do not constitute tuna, yet have been blended together by [Subway] to imitate the appearance of tuna.’
They don’t state what the tuna is actually made of.
“Subway delivers 100 per cent cooked tuna to its restaurants, which is mixed with mayonnaise and used in freshly made sandwiches, wraps and salads that are served to and enjoyed by our guests. The taste and quality of our tuna make it one of Subway’s most popular products and these baseless accusations threaten to damage our franchisees, small business owners who work tirelessly to uphold the high standards that Subway sets for all of its products, including its tuna.”
‘Given the facts, the lawsuit constitutes a reckless and improper attack on Subway’s brand and goodwill, and on the livelihood of its California franchisees. Indeed, there is no basis in law or fact for the plaintiffs’ claims, which are frivolous and are being pursued without adequate investigation.”
They continue: “Unfortunately, this lawsuit is part of a trend in which the named plaintiffs’ attorneys have been targeting the food industry in an effort to make a name for themselves in that space. Subway will vigorously defend itself against these and any other baseless efforts to mischaracterize and tarnish the high-quality products that Subway and its franchisees provide to their customers, in California and around the world, and intends to fight these claims through all available avenues if they are not immediately dismissed.”
“Not Tuna And Not Fish”
Shalini Dogra is the women’s attorney, and told The Washington Post: “We found that the ingredients were not tuna and not fish.”
Dhanowa and Amin are suing Subway for fraud, intentional misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and other civil violations.
Their claim says they ‘were tricked into buying food items that wholly lacked the ingredients they reasonably thought they were purchasing’.
They allege the sandwich chain ‘is saving substantial sums of money in manufacturing the products because the fabricated ingredient they use in the place of tuna costs less money.’
Subway says their tuna is flaked in brine, mayonnaise and an additive to ‘protect flavor.’
Social media users can’t believe their eyes.
Some people claiming to have worked at Subway are defending the chain.
Would you still eat it?
Image via Alamy