[ad_1]
A class action lawsuit filed last week in California accuses Subway, the Connecticut-based fast food giant, of fraud and false advertising of the contents of its tuna sandwiches, which the lawsuit claims are an “entirely no-mix. tuna base that the defendants mixed in. resembles tuna and mimics its texture. “
Subway denied the allegations, telling NBC News in a statement that it “delivers 100% cooked tuna to its restaurants, which is mixed with mayonnaise and used in freshly made sandwiches and wraps.”
“These baseless accusations threaten to harm our franchisees, small business owners who work tirelessly to uphold the high standards that Subway sets for all of its products, including its tuna,” said Maggie Truax, director of global public relations. of Subway, in a statement sent to NBC News. “On the facts, the lawsuit constitutes a reckless and abusive attack on Subway’s brand and goodwill, as well as the livelihoods of its California franchisees.” Indeed, there is no basis in law or in fact for the plaintiffs’ claims, which are frivolous and are pursued without adequate investigation. “
During dozens of pages of the lawsuit, plaintiffs Karen Dhanowa and Nilima Amin say they seek to represent a class of Subway customers who have purchased tuna sandwiches which they say “are completely lacking in any trace of tuna in as a component, not to mention the main or predominant ingredient. “
The January 21 lawsuit, filed in the Northern District of the United States District Court in the Northern District of California, claims that “independent tests have repeatedly confirmed” the claims of the plaintiffs, but does not mention where these tests were carried out, when and by whom. There was no specific evidence to support these allegations noted in the lawsuit.
Dhanowa did not respond to NBC News requests for comment via phone call and text. Amin did not respond to an emailed request for comment to NBC News.
Their fraud claims, according to Dhanowa and Amin, stem in part from the fact that the tuna sandwich is more expensive than other sandwiches on the menu.
“If the claimants and the rest of the group had known that the products really lacked tuna as an ingredient, they would not have bought the products or would have paid significantly less money for them,” the lawsuit said.
Noting that the complainants consumed the sandwiches as recently as 2020, the lawsuit also states that the complainants did not test the tuna in the sandwiches they actually ate.
“When they each purchased and consumed the products, the applicants did not take steps to verify the components of the products, or whether the products contained tuna as an ingredient.”
In an emailed statement, Alex Brown, the lead attorney at the Lanier law firm, which filed the complaint, repeated the prosecution’s claim that “independent testing of several samples sold at different locations has showed the absence of tuna or even a fish protein “.
“We are confident that our clients will win when they have their day in court,” said Brown.
When asked to cite additional details about the tests, Johnny Cargill, a spokesperson for the Lanier law firm, declined to comment.
For its part, the Milford, Connecticut-based sandwich giant said the suit “is part of a trend” of “targeting the food industry in an effort to make a name for itself in this space.”
“Subway will vigorously defend itself against these efforts and against any other unfounded efforts to distort and tarnish the high quality products that Subway and its franchisees provide to their customers in California and around the world and intend to fight these claims through all available avenues if they are not immediately referred, ”said Truax.
[ad_2]
Source link