Two California women claim Subway’s tuna sandwich actually contains not a “scintilla” of the fish — and that they were duped by the fast-food joint’s claims, a new $5 million lawsuit alleges.
Karen Dhanowa and Nilima Amin, both of Alameda County, Calif., say they ordered tuna from the sandwich giant at locations near their home as recently as last year, according to a federal lawsuit filed in the Northern District of California last week.
But, “independent testing has repeatedly affirmed, the products are made from anything but tuna,” the court papers allege.
“The filling in the products has no scintilla of tuna at all,” the suit claims.
In fact, Subway’s tuna is “made from a mixture of various concoctions that do not constitute tuna, yet have been blended together by defendants to imitate the appearance of tuna,” the court documents claim.
Read more at NY Post.
{Matzav.com}
And how is this nogia for the Ben Torah?
If this is true, Subway should have to pay treble damages to the plaintiffs.
$15 ought to cover it. They deserve every penny.
Come to think of it, they ought to get paid in pennies. 1,500 of them.
Hope they don’t spend it all on one sandwich.
I quit eating canned tuna. I can not do the bagel but I will cook a nice Tuna Steak. Who does not love laughing at the war for canning tuna? I think they have killed dolphins. Can we just wonder how much more fish tastes good from home? Its too nasty to go out.
Where are you going with this?
you can stick to fresh fish. some people don’t have that luxury or time. get off your high horse