Subway 'Tuna' Products Contain No Real Tuna Whatsoever, Class Action Claims [UPDATE]
Last Updated on November 16, 2021
Dhanowa et al. v. Subway Restaurants, Inc. et al.
Filed: January 21, 2021 ◆§ 4:21-cv-00498
A class action alleges Subway has capitalized on what consumers are willing to pay for tuna by falsely and misleadingly claiming that it uses real tuna in its sandwiches and wraps.
Case Updates
November 16, 2021 – Amended Complaint Filed
The plaintiffs in the case detailed on this page have filed an amended complaint to address the concerns raised in Judge Tigar’s October 7 dismissal order.
The second amended complaint, filed November 8, specifies that the plaintiffs relied on Subway’s allegedly false representations that its tuna products are “tuna” and “100% tuna.”
The filing goes on to claim that testing performed by researchers at UCLA’s Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology found that 19 of 20 tuna samples collected from various Southern California Subway restaurants “had no detectable tuna DNA sequences whatsoever.” Per the suit, all 20 samples contained chicken DNA, a majority (11 out of 20) contained pork DNA and some (seven out of 20) contained cattle DNA.
“As such,” the complaint states, “the Tuna Products are not being sold as advertised; that is, the Tuna Products are not ‘tuna’ or ‘100% tuna’ but are contaminated or otherwise adulterated such that consumers are not receiving the product they reasonably expect to be purchasing.”
The plaintiffs allege that if they or other consumers had known Subway’s tuna products “partially or wholly lacked tuna” or contained other fish or animal ingredients, they would not have purchased the products, or would have paid “significantly less.”
October 8, 2021 – Subway ‘Real Tuna’ Class Action Dismissed; Plaintiffs Can Try Again
United States District Judge Jon S. Tigar has dismissed the proposed class action detailed on this page while leaving the door open for the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint.
In an eight-page order submitted on October 7, Judge Tigar granted Subway’s motion to dismiss the case on the grounds that the plaintiff’s claims were not particular enough to satisfy the heightened pleading requirements for allegations of fraud. Overall, the plaintiffs' lawsuit fell short in that the consumers failed to describe the specific “real tuna” statements from Subway that they relied upon, as well as when they saw the statements and where they appeared.
Judge Tigar stressed in the order that although the plaintiffs alleged they purchased Subway tuna sandwiches “[i]n reliance on Defendants’ misleading marketing and deceptive advertising practices,” they did not say “that they actually read or heard any such advertising or packaging.” The plaintiffs previously argued that California law allows a false advertising claimant to skip identifying the specific representation they relied upon before making a purchase, but the judge did not agree that this exception should apply to their case, the order relays.
Get class action lawsuit news sent to your inbox – sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.
A proposed class action alleges Subway has capitalized on the premium consumers are willing to pay for tuna by falsely and misleadingly claiming that real tuna is being used as an ingredient in sandwiches and wraps.
The 25-page lawsuit, filed on January 21 in California, alleges Subway Restaurants, Franchise World Headquarters and Subway Franchisee Advertising Trust Fund Ltd. have deliberately and blatantly lied to reasonable consumers by advertising that they use real tuna as an ingredient.
“In reality, the Products do not contain tuna nor have any ingredient that constitutes tuna,” the complaint alleges. “The Products lack tuna and are completely bereft of tuna as an ingredient.”
As such, Subway’s “tuna” sandwiches and wraps are misbranded under California and federal laws, the suit says. The plaintiff and other Subway customers relied on the defendants’ “misleading marketing and deceptive advertising practices” in believing the products they purchased were made with actual tuna, the case claims.
“In fact, neither Plaintiffs nor any of the members of the putative class received any sandwich or wrap that had tuna at all, or even partially included tuna,” the complaint stresses. “Thus, they were tricked into buying food items that wholly lacked the ingredient they reasonably thought they were purchasing.”
According to the lawsuit, consumers are more willing to pay a higher price for sandwiches and wraps made with tuna because they associate the fish as having a higher nutritional value. Subway, the suit says, knows or has reason to know that the main ingredient in a sandwich or wrap is material in consumers’ purchase decisions.
Instead of real tuna, Subway’s “tuna” products are made “from a mixture of various concoctions that do not constitute tuna, yet have been blended together by Defendants to imitate the appearance of tuna,” the lawsuit claims.
“Consequently, because the Products lack tuna as an ingredient, consumers are not receiving the benefit of their bargain,” the suit says.
The suit alleges Subway has run afoul of California’s Business and Professions Code, Consumers Legal Remedies Act and False Advertising and Unfair Competition laws, and looks to represent all consumers in California who, on or after January 21, 2017, bought a “tuna” sandwich or wrap from Subway for household use and not for resale or distribution.
Get class action lawsuit news sent to your inbox – sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.
Before commenting, please review our comment policy.