Two California women claim that Subway’s tuna sandwich does not actually contain a “sparkle” from the fish – and that they have been duped by the cafeteria’s claims, claims a new $ 5 million lawsuit.
Karen Dhanowa and Nilima Amin, both from Alameda County, Calif., Say they ordered tuna from the sandwich giant near their home last year, according to a federal lawsuit opened in the Northern District of California last week.
But, “independent tests have repeatedly stated, the products are made of anything but tuna,” claim court documents.
“The filling of the products does not have tuna scintillation”, states the process.
In fact, Subway’s tuna is “made from a mixture of various mixtures that do not constitute tuna, but have been mixed by the defendants to mimic the appearance of the tuna,” the court documents say.
Subway did this in an effort to save money, since the product mixed with no tuna costs less, the process claims.
“Aware that consumers value tuna more as an ingredient, defendants deliberately make false and misleading claims about the composition of products to increase profits at the expense of unsuspecting buyers,” the lawsuit accuses.
Dhanowa and Amin “were tricked into buying food that totally lacked the ingredient they thought they were buying,” claim court documents.
If they knew the truth, they wouldn’t have bought Subway tuna or paid much less for it, the suit says.
They filed complaints of fraud, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment against the company.
Women are asking a judge to authorize them to file the lawsuit as a class action so that other people who bought Subway tuna can also “seek reimbursement for the premium” they paid “due to the defendants’ false and misleading representations about the composition and ingredients of the products ”, claim the court documents.
A Subway spokesman called the allegations “unfounded” and “frivolous”, adding that “they are being pursued without proper investigation”.
“There is simply no truth to the allegations made in California,” the spokesman said in a statement. “Subway delivers 100% cooked tuna in its restaurants, which is mixed with mayonnaise and used in freshly made sandwiches, wraps and salads that are served and enjoyed by our guests.”
The spokesman said that the quality and flavor of tuna make it one of the most sought after products.
The allegations “threaten to harm our franchisees, small business owners who work tirelessly to maintain the high standards that Subway sets for all of its products, including tuna,” said the representative.
“Unfortunately, this lawsuit is part of a trend in which the lawyers for the aforementioned plaintiffs have targeted the food industry in an effort to make a name for themselves in that space,” said the representative.
“Subway will vigorously defend itself against these and any other unfounded efforts to mischaracterize and tarnish the high-quality products that Subway and its franchisees provide to their customers, in California and around the world, and intends to fight these claims for all paths available if they are not fired immediately, ”continues the statement.
This is not the first legal battle the fast food franchise has faced. In September, the Supreme Court of Ireland ruled that there was too much sugar in its sandwiches to be considered “bread” – a legal distinction that could have provided the company with a tax reduction.