Court documents claim that a California woman's claim that Subway's tuna doesn't include any tuna was dismissed. When a matter is dismissed "with prejudice," it is permanently dismissed and cannot be reopened in court.
Due to her health, the plaintiff Nilima Amin submitted a motion to drop the case against Subway in April voluntarily.
Subway Tuna Lawsuit
(Photo : by Brandon Bell/Getty Images)
AUSTIN, TEXAS - JANUARY 12: The exterior of a Subway restaurant is seen on January 12, 2023 in Austin, Texas. Subway has reportedly begun exploring a sale which could value the sandwich chain at more than $10 billion, according to the Wall Street Journal.
The business expressed its appreciation for the dismissal and underlined on Thursday that it "serves 100% real, wild-caught tuna," according to CBS News. Amin claimed that she filed the complaint in the United States in her move to dismiss. In good faith, District Court for the Northern District of California.
According to court filings, Amin wanted the lawsuit dismissed because of pregnancy-related issues, but she "continues to believe there is good cause to continue it as addressed herein," according to the documents.
Amin and Karen Dhanowa initially filed the lawsuit in January 2021. The case stated that the two "were tricked into buying food items that wholly lacked the ingredients they reasonably thought they were purchasing," based on the labeling.
Subway filed a motion for sanctions after vehemently defending its tuna and launching www.subwaytunafacts.com in May.
The company requested $617,955 in sanctions and the fees related to this move. The sanctions motion referred to the tuna lawsuit as "frivolous litigation."
With more than 37,000 outlets in more than 100 countries, Subway settled a class-action lawsuit in 2016 regarding the size of its "Footlong" sandwiches.
Read Also: Taco Bell Faces Lawsuit Over Ingredients of Mexican Pizzas, Crunchwraps
What Happened?
In January 2021, two California residents, Karen Dhanowa and Nilima Amin, filed a class-action lawsuit against Subway, alleging that the chain's tuna products do not contain real tuna.
The plaintiffs claimed that they had conducted DNA testing on Subway tuna samples, which found no detectable tuna DNA. They also alleged that Subway's tuna products contained other fish species, chicken, pork, and cattle.
Subway denied the allegations, and the case was trialed in July 2022. In a July 27, 2023 ruling, U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning that it cannot be brought again.
Tigar ruled that the plaintiffs had not presented enough evidence to support their claims and that their DNA testing was unreliable.
The dismissal of the lawsuit is a victory for Subway, but it does not end the controversy surrounding the chain's tuna products.
Some people continue to believe that Subway's tuna is not real, and the company has not released any independent verification of its tuna content. The lawsuit against Subway is one of several recent cases that have raised questions about the food industry's use of artificial ingredients and misleading labeling.
In recent years, there have been lawsuits against companies such as Kraft Heinz, Nestle, and General Mills, alleging that their products contain misleading or inaccurate ingredient labels.
The Subway lawsuit is a reminder that consumers should be skeptical of food labels and do their research before making purchasing decisions. It is also a reminder that the food industry is only sometimes transparent about the ingredients in its products.
Related Article: Woman To File Lawsuit Against Subway After Employee Writes 'Big Mama' On Her Order
