Running a food business is a job of total responsibility and reliability. It is because when a customer visits a food place repeatedly, it means that they are leaving behind all their suspicions and putting all their trust in the brand. However, if later, at some point, it is discovered that the restaurant is not offering what it has advertised so far, then, of course, everyone knows the consequences: you are not going to win the same kind of trust and reliability that you enjoyed earlier! For a more straightforward example, if you used to play at a reliable platform such as ice bet casino, it wouldn’t have rewarded you with what it advertised. Well, it sounds like havoc, and yes, it is when the famous Subway is charged for not serving the right food type.
What’s the Story?
One of the recent stories from Subway is that it is facing a lawsuit charged by Nilima Amin from Almeda County in California. According to the accuser, Subway is misleading all its customers by falsely advertising its tuna sandwiches, which according to the brand, contain not only ‘tuna’ but ‘100% tuna’. Well, the main question is, how come she charges such a significant allegation against a prominent food brand?
Amin’s Lawsuit and the Background Research
Amin is not making such a claim without any proof, but her lawsuit cites the research of a marine biologist. The tests were conducted at the Barber Lab at UCLA’s Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. So, according to the report:
- Twenty samples of tuna sandwiches were analyzed from the different Subway points.
- It says that no tuna DNA was detected in the 19 samples.
- They had evidence of chicken, buffalo, and pork.
What Is Subway’s Stance?
The lawsuit is leading to the low reputation of Subway; the food brand has contested the allegations and has claimed before Judge Jon S. Tigar at U.S District Court that its sandwiches contain 100% tuna; therefore, it has requested to dismiss the suit.
History of Allegations Against Subway
A little back than Amin’s Allegations, there was another lawsuit presented by Dhanowa, who also had the same complaints against Subway. Because the accuser could not provide evidence for a subway purchase and no harm was done to the complainer, Tigar dismissed the case. The claim was also rejected because, according to the judge’s note, the sandwich comprises other ingredients as well as bread and mayonnaise. However, the court still saved the ruling that the sandwiches contained other materials such as animal species or fish species and miscellaneous products.
Subway’s Explanation before the Court
According to Subway, the DNA that is examined and detected by the lab is likely to be found in the ingredients, such as eggs in the mayonnaise, or contaminated through the cross-contact ingredients. It is expected that the sandwich maker may have contaminated such sandwiches or when the Subway’s chef is in the kitchen, uses the same gloves, cutting boards, and other items.
However, there are still reservations in the court after all the clarifications by the company, and according to to judge Tigar, reasonable consumers will never expect to find other ingredients for a sandwich that advertises to contain 100% tuna. Therefore, only based on such explanations that the different DNAs are found through the cross-contacts is not a rational explanation that a logical customer would never believe, and this matter would remain under question.
Against all such developments, the company holds some reservations and is unhappy with the court’s ruling. According to the attorney of Subway, Mark C. Goodman, such lawsuits are meritless, and he is disappointed that the court has not dismissed such prejudices. According to Subway, the company can understand that the court had to accept the applicant’s pleading, but the fact is that such claims are baseless and untrue. Subway’s attorney further claims that Subway is offering real tuna, and the company is ready to bring forth all the evidence with all confidence when the court allows it. In fact, it will be done to justify the company’s stance.
Moreover, Subway has also refused to accept the tests taken to the lab by the plaintiffs because they have not provided enough information about the lab’s testing methodologies. Therefore these DNA tests are unreliable.
The food chain has also reasoned that a valid test could be a specific testing method that could detect tuna DNA after it is cooked at high heat. Also, the barcoding test is specific for the cases of fish fraud which can only tell the difference between fresh or loving tissues, and this test is not as reliable for cooked products.
The Court’s Decision
Under all the explanations, the court is not swayed by the testing methods, and there are no legal requirements for the plaintiffs to produce evidence that must prove the falsity. According to Tigar, the complaint against Subway is sufficient and explicitly mentions what is wrong with the product being offered. It is enough to see that the tuna description by the company is not actually what it is advertising. It is because either the product has no tuna or the company uses ingredients that a reasonable person cannot expect to find in tuna.