A California judge ruled Monday that a lawsuit against Subway over its alleged artificial tuna can proceed.
Judge Jon Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that Subway can be sued over its claims that its tuna sandwich contains “100% tuna.” This is the latest development in Karen Dhanowa and Nilima Amin’s 2021 lawsuit against the sandwich maker, in which they allege the tuna is not real. A previous complaint over the same issue from Dhanowa and Amin was dismissed last October.
UCLA marine biologist Paul Barber performed tests on the sandwiches and found that they “partially or wholly lack tuna as an ingredient,” instead containing “other fish species, animal products, or miscellaneous products aside from tuna.” The New York Times also commissioned a test that did not detect tuna DNA in a sample.
‘SNIP FOR SHAKE’: FREE MILKSHAKES OFFERED TO CUSTOMERS SHOWING PROOF OF VASECTOMY
“Subway serves 100% tuna. We are disappointed the Court felt it couldn’t dismiss the plaintiffs’ reckless and improper lawsuit at this stage,” a Subway representative said in a statement. “However, we are confident that Subway will prevail when the Court has an opportunity to consider all the evidence.”
As a result of the allegations, Subway launched a website dedicated to proving its tuna is real. There, the restaurant disputes the New York Times’s DNA test of the tuna, attributing the results to the fact that cooked tuna doesn’t necessarily have the fish’s original DNA. The site makes no mention of Barber’s test.
“The truth is, Subway uses wild-caught skipjack tuna regulated by the Food and Drug Administration,” the website reads. “A favorite among sub lovers, our tuna is and has always been high-quality, premium and 100% real.”
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
A Subway representative suggested that any product found in its tuna that is not real tuna could be the result of cross-contamination.
