Subway’s tuna lawsuit dismissed.

Subway's tuna lawsuit dismissed.

Subway’s Tuna Lawsuit Dismissed: The Truth Behind the Tuna

Subway Tuna

Subway can finally breathe a sigh of relief as a lawsuit casting doubts on the contents of its tuna products has been dismissed after nearly 30 months of legal battles. The class-action lawsuit, first filed in January 2021, initially claimed that Subway’s tuna products were not made of real tuna but rather a concoction of various ingredients. However, the plaintiffs later amended their claims to allege that Subway did not serve customers the 100% sustainably-caught skipjack and yellowfin tuna it advertised.

To add more fuel to the fire, in June of the same year, The New York Times published an explosive report claiming that lab tests found no amplifiable tuna DNA in Subway’s tuna sample, making it impossible to identify the species. Subsequent amendments to the lawsuit further alleged that Subway’s tuna contained detectable traces of chicken, pork, and cattle DNA.

Throughout the legal battle, Subway vehemently defended its tuna, stating that it exclusively sources wild-caught tuna from fisheries with sustainable stocks. In response to The Times’ test results, Subway justified that cooked tuna may not always yield detectable tuna DNA and emphasized that the absence of amplifiable DNA in the sample does not equate to zero tuna content.

As the case unfolded, one of the plaintiffs withdrew from the lawsuit, and in April, the remaining plaintiff, Nilima Amin, sought to dismiss the case without prejudice, citing severe morning sickness that hindered her ability to continue the legal battle. However, Subway’s lawyers were skeptical of Amin’s motives, suggesting that the move was simply an acknowledgment that their attempts to extract a substantial settlement had failed.

Subway didn’t stop at defending its position; they also sought to sanction Amin’s seven attorneys, claiming that the lawsuit was frivolous and had undergone extensive modifications. Subway argued that the lawyers should have dropped the case much sooner, and they demanded over $600,000 in sanctions to cover legal fees and the costs associated with addressing the negative publicity surrounding their tuna.

Subway’s lawyers pointed out that the lawsuit not only subjected the company and its franchisees to public ridicule and damaged reputation but also resulted in a loss of business. They argued that Amin and her attorneys should face consequences for the impact caused by their claims.

In response, Amin’s counsel maintained that the lawsuit was filed in good faith, defending their client’s intentions.

Finally, Subway and Amin reached an agreement to dismiss the case with prejudice, meaning that Amin cannot refile the same claim in the same court. However, the judge has not yet ruled on the requested sanctions.

Subway released a statement expressing their satisfaction with the dismissal, labeling the reckless lawsuit as lacking any merit.

The dispute over Subway’s tuna has highlighted the challenges faced by food companies in the era of misinformation and the potential harm that frivolous lawsuits can inflict on businesses. Amidst the humorous headlines and speculation, it is essential to remember that substantiated claims based on scientific evidence should be the foundation for legal action. As consumers, we should seek truth and transparency in the food industry, while also recognizing the burden of proof necessary to support our claims.