Nov 11 (Reuters) – A brand new model of a lawsuit accusing Subway of deceiving the general public about its tuna merchandise mentioned lab testing reveals they comprise animal proteins comparable to rooster, pork and cattle, and never the marketed “100% tuna.”
Karen Dhanowa and Nilima Amin filed a 3rd model of their proposed class motion this week within the federal court docket in San Francisco, close to their properties in Alameda County.
Subway mentioned in a press release it’ll search a dismissal of the “reckless and improper” lawsuit, calling the claims “meritless” and saying its “high-quality, wild-caught, 100% tuna” was regulated strictly in the USA and around the globe.
For the reason that case started in January, Subway has run TV advertisements and launched a website defending its tuna. It additionally revamped its menu however not its tuna, saying an improve wasn’t needed.
The unique grievance claimed that Subway tuna merchandise were “bereft” of tuna, whereas an amended grievance mentioned they were not 100% sustainably caught skipjack and yellowfin tuna.
U.S. District Choose Jon Tigar dismissed the second model final month, saying the plaintiffs didn’t present they purchased Subway tuna primarily based on alleged misrepresentations.
He didn’t rule on the deserves, and gave the plaintiffs one other likelihood to make their case.
The Nov. 8 lawsuit depends on testing by a marine biologist of 20 tuna samples taken from 20 Subway eating places in southern California.
It mentioned 19 samples had “no detectable tuna DNA sequences,” whereas all 20 contained detectable rooster DNA, 11 contained pork DNA and seven contained cattle DNA.
Many individuals can’t eat numerous meats due to eating regimen or non secular points.
The grievance mentioned the testing confirmed that Subway mislabeled its tuna merchandise, and “duped” customers into paying premium costs.
Amin mentioned she ordered Subway tuna merchandise greater than 100 instances from 2013 to 2019, and at all times checked the menu to make sure she could be consuming “only tuna.”
The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages for fraud and violations of California client safety legal guidelines.
The case is Amin et al v Subway Eating places Inc et al, U.S. District Courtroom, Northern District of California, No. 21-00498.
Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Modifying by Michael Perry
Our Requirements: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.