The Subway tuna lawsuit is still reigning over the others as they are being the spotlight after the verdict.
The altered tuna lawsuit was declined by the judge of the US District Court last week, which was the third lawsuit against tuna filed by Nilioma Amin and Karen Dhanova.
In November, the Alameda County residents alleged in the lawsuit that they were deceived to buy the tuna for a higher price as they were all made to believe that the Subway tuna had no content of animal-based fish, but only the tuna itself.
The Subway Tuna Lawsuit Still Hangs Over The Chain’s Head
Despite the DNA barcode testing performed by the plaintiffs at UCLA revealing that the tunas collected from the Southern Subway locations in California had chicken DNA, pig DNA, and bovine DNA, whereas no tuna samples collected had the detected tuna DNA, the court dismissed the case with no noticeable ruling on Subway tuna.
However, Subway showed up claiming that the fish content detected in the sandwiches was of the tuna that they caught wild. The very next month, the law representatives of the company passed a motion requesting to put down the lawsuit with prejudice.
After multiple attempts, the allegations put forward by Dhanova and Amin were declined by John S. Tigar, the US District Court Judge, who ruled that the case shall be dismissed as Dhanova could not support his accusations with solid proof. The court also denied the allegations of the Plaintiffs, which alleged that Subway was not selling 100% tuna, instead, they were deceiving the customers.
Tiger was convinced by the logical reasons put forward by the company where they stated that a sandwich will contain mayonnaise and other fillings and the animal DNA detected would be from the eggs used for the preparation of mayonnaise.
They also put light on the fact that their chefs are using single gloves, utensils, and other essential tools for the preparation of multiple dishes, and thus, certain mismatching in the ingredients must have been caused by that.
However, the judge also noted the fact that these reasons are not so valid before the court as the cross-contact from the other dishes still would have a limit and the consumers can only accept such misdemeanors to a certain extent only.
Subway rep. Marc C Goodman concluded his words by saying that the company is disappointed with the verdict of the court that affected the goodwill of Subway.
He further added that it is understandable for them as the court last-minute agreed upon the allegations made by the Plaintiffs, however, the subway would still claim their tuna as the tuna itself. Goodman also mentioned their confidence in overcoming the false accusations made by the Plaintiffs one by one as the company cannot let the court give a final ruling with a baseless claim of DNA tests, without mentioning the exact method they preferred.