This is an archived article and the information in the story may be outdated. Please check the time stamp on the story to see when it was updated last.
The lawsuit over Subway’s tuna salad just took an unexpected turn; in a third filing in the California case, plaintiffs are now saying that the restaurant chains’ “100% tuna” mixture actually contains chicken, pork, cattle DNA when tested in the lab. OMG!
We’ve followed along as this case was initially filed in federal court in San Francisco, the New York Times followed up with their investigation, and the Connecticut-based chain celebrated a victory in the case when the judge struck down the plaintiff’s second filing. Now it’s getting even juicier (pun intended)!
Karen Dhanowa and Nilima Amin filed a third version of their proposed class action this week, this timing bringing new claims about the sandwich chain’s tuna fish contents to light. Whereas previous filings claimed that the tuna found in Subway’s sandwiches and salads was “bereft” of tuna DNA, then not 100% sustainably caught skipjack and yellowfin tuna, this latest filing takes things in an entirely different direction. Many had wondered aloud what was in the tuna mixture if not tuna, and now we may have found out what they meant. Pescaterians would certainly be concerned if this latest filing has any merit!
Amin has said that she ordered Subway tuna off the menu more than 100 times between the years of 2013 and 2019. She says that the company mislabeled its tuna products and “duped” customers like herself into paying a premium for 100% tuna. If the chicken, pork and cattle claims are true, it won’t be worrisome *only* for those who don’t eat fish or are watching their wallets: many people can’t eat these meats because of their religious beliefs or diets.
We’ll keep an eye on the developing (and unusual) case!
