This is an archived article and the information in the story may be outdated.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.
Subway has received the news they needed to continue selling their tuna sandwiches: a judge in California dismissed a proposed class action by Subway customers alleging that the tuna wasn’t what it advertised to be (aka, fish). Now that was a sentence we never knew we’d write!
In case you missed it, the Connecticut-based chain had faced the public suit filing (and a damning New York Times report) that the tuna sold in their restaurants didn’t actually contain tuna fish according to lab analysis. Welp. Two customers filed the suit in January of this year stating that they believed they were ordering tuna containing “sustainably-farmed skipjack and yellowfin tuna,” but that lab tests proved that the tuna blend’s ingredients don’t actually “constitute tuna.”
The lawsuit had reverberations across the country, leading the Times to do their own analysis of the tuna mix (and leading a lot of people to wonder, if it’s not tuna, what the heck it is??). Although the whole saga (obviously) cast suspicions about Subway’s tuna, the California judge this week said that he was “suspicious,” about the complaint, and that it “‘definitely doesn’t identify the specific representation that Subway made.'”
According to their website, Subway’s tuna salad is made of “100% wild caught tuna mixed with mayo.” I’m not sure where the California plaintiffs came up with the skipjack and yellowfin tuna claim–and neither was the judge (although internet research shows that those are the two most common types that end up in tuna can varietals). A rep for Subway told Eat This that their understanding of the judge’s decision was that the case had been dismissed on technical grounds (because the plaintiffs didn’t disclose what statements they relied on when purchasing their tuna). But, alas, legal experts and Subway themselves concede that the case could be resumed if the plaintiffs can show it via an amendment to the original complaint. Aka, the saga continues!
And, if you recall, even the NYT acknowledged that tuna DNA may not even be something you can test for. So, are they saying we may actually never know?
