Home » News » Subway tuna lawsuit now claims chicken, bacon, and cattle DNA detection

Subway tuna lawsuit now claims chicken, bacon, and cattle DNA detection

Subway has filed a new version of its lawsuit accusing it of misleading the public about its tuna products. Lab testing revealed that they contain animal proteins, not the “100% tuna .”

Karen Dhanowa, Nilima Amin, who filed the third version of their proposed class-action this week in San Francisco federal court. They are located in Alameda County.

Subway stated in a statement that it would seek to dismiss the “reckless, improper” lawsuit.

Subway stated that the plaintiffs had “filed three meritless complains, changing their stories each time” and that the “high-quality, wild caught, 100% tuna was strictly regulated in the United States as well as around the globe.

Since the case began in January, Subway has run TV ads and launched a website defending its tuna. Subway also updated its menu, but not its tuna. It stated that an upgrade was not necessary .

The original complaint stated that Subway’s tuna sandwiches, wraps and tuna salads were “bereft” of tuna. An amended complaint stated that they weren’t 100% sustainably landed skipjack or yellowfin tuna U.S. The second version was dismissed by District Judge Jon Tigar last month. He said that the plaintiffs didn’t prove they purchased Subway tuna on the basis of alleged misrepresentations.

He didn’t rule on the merits and gave the plaintiffs another opportunity to present their case.

The Nov. 8 lawsuit is based on the testing of 20 tuna taken from 20 Subway locations in Southern California by a marine biologist.

It said 19 samples had “no detectable tuna DNA sequences,” while all 20 contained detectable chicken DNA, 11 contained pork DNA and 7 contained cattle DNA. Many people are unable to eat different meats due to religious or diet restrictions. The complaint stated that Subway had mislabeled tuna products and “duped” customers into paying higher prices.

Amin said she ordered Subway tuna products more than 100 times from 2013 to 2019, and always checked the menu to ensure she would be eating “only tuna.”

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages for fraud and violations of California consumer protection laws.


Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *