On Nov. 8, a third complaint accusing Subway of deceiving the public was presented, saying that a lab testing has revealed that Subway’s tuna products contain other animal proteins, including chicken, pork, and cattle, rather than “100% tuna” as advertised, Reuters informed.
This week, San Francisco’s federal court has received the third version of Karen Dhanowa and Nilima Amin’s proposed class action lawsuit following two previous versions submitted since January.
The initial complaint has alleged Subway served tuna salads, sandwiches, and wraps with almost no tuna, while an amended one later came, claiming that they were not 100% sustainably caught skipjack and yellowfin tuna.
However, the plaintiffs failed to provide any evidence proving they had bought Subway tuna, causing the rejection of their second version of the lawsuit last month, based on alleged misrepresentations by U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar.
Jon Tigar hasn’t made any rules on the merits, leaving the plaintiffs another opportunity to present their case.
In response to the accusation, Subway said in a statement that it would search for measures discharging the “reckless and improper” lawsuit, as Reuters reported.
The food chain also criticized the plaintiffs on their three baseless complaints, as they say their accusations kept adjusting each time. Moreover, Subway insisted on their high-quality process with wild-caught, 100% tuna, strictly controlled in the United States and worldwide.
Subway has applied many measures in an attempt to defend its tuna, including TV ads broadcasting, a new website and menu since the case began in January; but have defended its tuna even saying that an upgrade was unnecessary.
In the latest complaint on Nov. 8, Subway was accused of mislabeling its tuna products and cheating customers into paying premium prices following the testing of 20 tuna samples from 20 Subway restaurants in Southern California.
The test conducted by a marine biologist said that 19 samples had “no detectable tuna DNA sequences,” while all 20 contained detectable chicken DNA, 11 contained pork, and 7 contained cattle DNA.
Amin has chosen Subway tuna products for her meals more than 100 times from 2013 to 2019, and she always did check on the menu to ensure her dish contained “only tuna.” Like Amin, many people can only digest certain types of meats due to diet or religious issues.
The lawsuit appears as a manner to seek unspecified damages for fraud and violations of California consumer protection laws.