A new version of a lawsuit accusing Subway of misleading the public about its tuna products, he said laboratory tests show they contain animal proteins such as chicken, pork and cattle, and not the advertised “100% tuna.”
Karen Dhanowa and Nilima Amin presented a third version of their class action lawsuit proposed this week in federal court in San Francisco, near their homes in Alameda County.
Subway said in a statement that it will seek the dismissal of the “reckless and inappropriate” lawsuit, ensuring that the claims “have no merit” and saying that its “100% high-quality, wild-caught tuna” is strictly regulated in the United States. United and the world.
Since the case started in January, Subway has aired television commercials and has launched a website defending its tuna. They also revamped their menu, but not their tuna, saying an update was not necessary.
The original lawsuit claimed that tuna products from Subway they are “devoid” of fish, while an amended complaint said it was not 100% sustainably caught skipjack and yellowfin tuna.
District Judge Jon Tigar dismissed the second version last month, stating that the plaintiffs failed to prove that they purchased Subway tuna based on alleged misrepresentations. It did not rule on the merits and gave the plaintiffs another opportunity to present their case.
The November 8 lawsuit is based on the tests by a marine biologist to 20 tuna samples taken from 20 Subway restaurants in Southern California.
Assured that 19 samples “had no detectable tuna DNA sequences”While all 20 contained detectable DNA from chicken, 11 from pork, and seven from beef. Many people cannot eat a variety of meats for dietary or religious reasons.
Reference-www.eleconomista.com.mx