At least one court doesn't think Subway's bread is actually bread. Now, a new lawsuit alleges that Subway's tuna isn't actually tuna. As Law and Crime reports, two California residents are bringing a class-action suit that asserts the chain's tuna sandwiches "are made from anything but tuna." Subway denies this. The lawsuit, though, say tests from multiple restaurants revealed that the tuna is "a mixture of various concoctions that do not constitute tuna, yet have been blended together by Defendants to imitate the appearance of tuna." One of the attorneys for the pair declined to say what ingredients the tests actually found, reports the Washington Post. Nor is it specified which labs conducted the tests, notes Business Insider. As more and more outlets pick up the story, Subway is issuing a blanket denial.
"These claims are meritless," says the Subway statement. "Tuna is one of our most popular sandwiches. Our restaurants receive 100% wild-caught tuna, mix it with mayonnaise and serve on a freshly made sandwich to our guests." The lawsuit is seeking $5 million to compensate consumers it says have been duped. Subway says it promises to "vigorously defend itself against these and any other baseless" accusations. The lawsuit spells out a number of potential violations, including fraud and negligence. But the bottom line, it states, is that "when a consumer sees a food product labeled and identified as ‘tuna,’ or containing ‘tuna,’ they reasonably expect the food will contain tuna fish." Plaintiffs Karen Dhanowa and Nilima Amin filed suit in US District Court in Northern California. (As for that bread lawsuit, an Irish court says the rolls have too much sugar.)