Subway’s Tuna Scoop Turns Into a Full‑Feature Snack‑Drama
In what feels like a culinary cliffhanger, Subway is once again under the hot‑lamp after a fresh batch of lawsuits claimed that the deli’s famous tuna isn’t 100 % tuna at all. The new version of the complaint, now the third, asserts that lab tests discovered chicken, pork, and even beef proteins lurking inside the “tuna” sandwiches the chain sold.
Where the Action Is Taking Place
- Filing location: Federal court in San Francisco, a city close to the plaintiffs’ Alameda County homes.
- Key plaintiffs: Karen Dhanowa and Nilima Amin.
Subway’s Take on the Allegations
Subway’s spokesperson fired back, promising to move for dismissal and calling the suit “reckless and improper.” The chain claims the plaintiffs have filed three meritless complaints, each time tweaking their story. According to Subway, the tuna in question is high‑quality, wild‑caught, 100 % tuna that adheres to strict regulations both domestically and abroad.
The Ongoing Battle on TV
Since the first suit in January, Subway has aired TV ads defending their tuna, launched a website full of smug confidence, and even spruced up their menu—yet they’re not ready to upgrade the tuna itself. Their past complaints ranged from claiming the tuna salads and wraps were “bereft” of tuna to insisting they weren’t fully wild‑caught skipjack and yellowfin tuna.
Judge Tigger’s Verdict on the Second File
In February, US District Judge Jon Tigar tossed the second version of the lawsuit due to a lack of evidence that customers had relied on alleged misrepresentations. He held back from saying whether the claims were solid or not, letting the plaintiffs try again.
Science Meets the Sandwich
The current suit hinges on a marine biologist’s analysis of 20 tuna samples from 20 Southern California Subway locations. Findings were startling:
- 19 samples had no detectable tuna DNA.
- All 20 samples contained chicken DNA.
- 11 samples revealed pork DNA.
- 7 samples had cattle DNA.
For many, these meats are not simply extra toppings—they’re often off-limits due to dietary restrictions or religious reasons. The plaintiffs argue that Subway’s labeling misled customers into paying premium prices for supposed “tuna” when, in reality, they were getting a protein mash‑up.
Amin’s Long Story of Tuna Loyalty
Amin, who bought Subway tuna products over a hundred times between 2013 and 2019, claims she always double‑checked the menu to make sure she was eating “only tuna.” Now, she seeks an undefined amount of damages for fraud and violations of California consumer protection laws.
Case Details
Amin et al. v. Subway Restaurants Inc. et al.—U.S. District Court, Northern District of California—Case No. 21‑00498.
