- Title: Subway: Time to end 'outrageous' lawsuit over its tuna
- Date: 26th July 2021
- Summary: HOLDERNESS, NEW HAMPSHIRE, UNITED STATES (JULY 26, 2021) (REUTERS) (SOUNDBITE) (English) NYU PROFESSOR OF NUTRITION, FOOD STUDIES, AND PUBLIC HEALTH EMERITA, MARION NESTLE, SAYING: "I think what this shows is how the fish area of a supermarket is the wild west of the supermarket. We know so little about what the fish are that we're eating, whether they're really what we expect them to be. The fish situation is really complicated and most consumers don't have a clue what they're eating when they're eating fish. But I think the public has a right to expect that if it's advertised as a tuna sandwich, and you're buying it as a tuna sandwich, then you'd be getting a tuna to eat."
- Embargoed: 9th August 2021 17:43
- Keywords: Marion Nestle. Karen Dhanowa Nilima Amin Subway Subway lawsuit Tuna class action fast food
- Location: NEW YORK, NEW YORK + SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA + WASHINGTON, DC + HOLDERNESS, NEW HAMPSHIRE, UNITED STATES/ MIURA, KANAGAWA PREFECTURE, JAPAN / BEIJING, CHINA
- City: NEW YORK, NEW YORK + SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA + WASHINGTON, DC + HOLDERNESS, NEW HAMPSHIRE, UNITED STATES/ MIURA, KANAGAWA PREFECTURE, JAPAN / BEIJING, CHINA
- Country: USA
- Topics: Crime/Law/Justice,Judicial Process/Court Cases/Court Decisions,United States
- Reuters ID: LVA008ENH7RK7
- Aspect Ratio: 16:9
- Story Text: Subway urged a federal judge in California to throw out a lawsuit accusing the chain of deceiving consumers about the content of its tuna sandwiches, wraps and salads.
In a court filing on Friday (July 23), Subway Restaurants Inc said the plaintiffs offered no facts to support their "frivolous" claim that the products did not contain "100% sustainably caught skipjack and yellowfin tuna" or might have contained tuna "from anything less than healthy stocks, for example Albacore and Tongol."
Subway also said the plaintiffs' lawyers should be sanctioned, calling their conduct "frankly, outrageous."
Those lawyers did not immediately respond on Monday to requests for comment.
The lawsuit filed in January by Karen Dhanowa and Nilima Amin had said Subway's tuna products were "completely bereft of tuna," and concocted to "imitate the appearance of tuna" so Subway could charge premium prices.
An amended complaint on June 7 removed the "no tuna" claim, but maintained that Subway's "malicious" labeling, marketing and advertising of its tuna products was false and misleading.
In Friday's filing, Subway said the negative media attention from the lawsuit hurt thousands of franchisees by depressing sales of a best-selling product.
Subway recently had more than 37,500 locations worldwide, including more than 24,600 in the United States and Canada.
The proposed class action covers California purchasers of Subway tuna products after Jan. 20, 2017.
Subway revamped its menu this month but made no changes to its tuna, saying an upgrade wasn't needed.
The case is Amin et al v Subway Restaurants Inc et al, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 21-00498.
(Production by: Dan Fastenberg) - Copyright Holder: REUTERS
- Copyright Notice: (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2021. Open For Restrictions - http://about.reuters.com/fulllegal.asp
- Usage Terms/Restrictions: None
