Washington Post: “The on-again, off-again Subway tuna lawsuit is on again, and this time the plaintiffs are revealing their test results. They claim that 19 of 20 tuna samples from Subway locations throughout Southern California had no detectable tuna DNA, and all of the samples contained at least one other animal protein, whether chicken, pork or cattle.
“Subway’s marketing, labeling and advertising, the lawsuit contends, duped the plaintiffs ‘into buying premium priced food dishes based on the representation that the tuna products contained only tuna and no other fish species, animal products, or miscellaneous ingredients.’ If true, the claims would raise more than legal issues for one of the largest fast-food chains in the world. It would raise ethical, religious and dietary issues for consumers who, for example, avoid red meat or don’t eat pork because of their beliefs.
“But representatives for Subway say the amended lawsuit — the third one filed this year alleging fraud, unjust enrichment and other claims under federal and California state laws — is the only thing that’s misleading the public. ‘The plaintiffs’ latest attempt to state a claim against Subway is just as meritless as their prior attempts,’ Mark C. Goodman, an attorney representing Subway, said in an email statement to The Washington Post. ‘These claims are false and will be proven to be completely meritless if the case gets past the pleading stage.'”