July 11 (Reuters) – A federal judge has said Subway may be sued for allegedly misleading customers about its tuna products, including the claim that it uses other species of fish, chicken, pork and livestock instead of advertised “100% tuna”.
U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar in San Francisco considered it premature to accept Subway’s argument that any presence of DNA other than tuna could result from eggs in mayonnaise or cross-contact with other ingredients handled by employees. of their restaurants.
“While Subway’s explanations may be correct, it is also possible that these allegations relate to ingredients that a reasonable consumer would not reasonably expect to find in a tuna product,” Tigar ruled on July 7.
The judge also said plaintiff Nilima Amin, a resident of Alameda County who claimed to have ordered Subway tuna products more than 100 times between 2013 and 2019, could try to prove that the salads, sandwiches and wraps ” completely missing “of tuna.
He rejected Amin’s argument that “reasonable consumers” would only expect tuna and nothing else, and described it as a “fact of life” that tuna products could contain mayonnaise and bread. Tigar also dismissed another plaintiff in the case.
Neither Subway nor its attorneys responded immediately to requests for comment Monday. Amin’s lawyers did not immediately respond to similar requests.
Subway has more than 37,000 restaurants.
He has repeatedly defended his tuna, even in TV commercials and on his website, and said no changes were needed. The menu is renewed this month and last July did not include changes to its tuna.
Amin’s lawsuit was based on the findings of a marine biologist who tested 20 subway tuna samples in Southern California.
Tests at UCLA’s Barber Lab found that 19 samples contained “no detectable tuna DNA sequence,” while 20 had chicken DNA, 11 had pig DNA and 7 had cattle DNA, according to the complaint.
Many people cannot eat different meats for dietary or religious reasons.
The lawsuit seeks compensation for damages for fraud and violation of California consumer protection laws. Tigar ruled out an earlier version last November.
The case is Amin et al Subway Restaurants Inc et al, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, no. 21-00498.