Jonathan Stempel

(Reuters] – Subway has been accused in a new lawsuit of lying to the public about their tuna products. Laboratory testing revealed that the tuna products contain animal proteins, such as poultry, pork, and cattle. This is not the “100% tuna” advertised.

Karen Dhanowa, Nilima Amin and Nilima Amin filed the third version of their class action proposal this week at San Francisco’s federal court. It was near their Alameda County homes.

Subway announced in a statement, that it will sue for dismissal of “reckless” suit. Subway called these claims “meritless” while claiming its “high quality, wild-caught 100% tuna” was tightly regulated both in the United States as around the globe.

Subway’s has launched TV advertisements and a website to defend its tuna products since the beginning of this case in January. Subway also updated its menu, but it did not change its tuna.

Subway products claimed to be “bereft” tuna. An amended complaint stated that they weren’t 100% sustainably caught yellowfin and skipjack tuna.

Jon Tigar, U.S. District Judge, dismissed the second version of the lawsuit last month. He said that the plaintiffs didn’t show they purchased Subway tuna on the basis of alleged misrepresentations.

The judge did not decide on merits and allowed the plaintiffs to present their cases again.

A marine biologist tested 20 samples of tuna taken from Subway restaurants throughout southern California for the Nov. 8 lawsuit.

According to the report, 19 samples contained “no detectable DNA sequences from tuna”, while the other 20 contained detectable DNA of chicken and pork.

Because of religious or diet issues, many people are unable to eat certain meats.

Subway was accused of mislabeled products in tuna and misleading consumers to pay premium prices.

Amin claimed that Subway products were ordered more than 100 time from 2013 to 2019 and she checked every menu item to be certain she was ordering “only tuna”

Unspecified damages are sought for fraud and violation of California consumer protection laws.

Amin et al v Subway Restaurants Inc et al. U.S. District Court Northern District of California No. 22-010498.