A lawsuit filed in 2021 claiming that Subway Restaurants’ tuna did not contain any actual tuna fish has been dismissed by a U.S. federal judge.
The lawsuit, filed by plaintiffs Karen Dhanowa and Nilima Amin, originally claimed that the tuna used in Subway’s wraps and sandwiches contained no actual fish. As the lawsuit progressed, the lawsuit later shifted focus to the sustainability of the tuna, before those claims were dismissed as not being specific enough. Then, the two plaintiffs filed another revised class-action suit which contended that pork and chicken were mixed with the tuna, instead of it being “100 percent tuna.”
The lawsuit continued until May 2023, when Amin asked U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tiger to dismiss the case, stating that severe morning sickness due to pregnancy, which made the lawsuit too difficult to continue. Subway, meanwhile, was requesting sanctions of over USD 600,000 (EUR 543,000) against attorneys Shalina Dogra of the Dogra Law Group, Mark Lanier and Jonathan Wilkerson of the Lanier Law Firm, Patrick McNicholas and Jeffrey Lamb of McNicholas & McNicholas, and Richard Kellner of Kellner Law Group in compensation for legal fees incurred over the various lawsuits.
Now, Courthouse News reports Tigar has signed off on the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice, meaning the complaint can no longer be refiled. However, the judge did not rule on the motion for sanctions.
The case garnered national media attention and an investigation published by the New York Times, which claimed lab testing it commissioned could not detect tuna DNA. Subway’s lawyer Mark Goodman repeatedly asserted the claims that tuna DNA could not be found in Subway’s tuna are a natural result of the tuna being cooked at a high temperature.
DNA testing firm Applied Food Technologies confirmed to SeafoodSource in 2021 that lab testing for DNA in cooked tuna won’t detect any tuna DNA. Applied Food Technologies Founder and President LeeAnn Applewhite said her lab is the only one in the country capable of testing processed tuna to determine its DNA.
“The retort process used in canned tuna production degrades and fragments the DNA. Our proprietary primers were developed to target these small fragments of DNA for analysis,” Applewhite said. “We have been working with the canned tuna industry for 15 years, and it is not easy. We spent a lot of time developing the polymers with the correct primers to do this kind of work.”
During a court hearing on 27 July, Goodman said the plaintiffs in the case ignored the evidence in the case, and that the lawsuit was “lawyer-driven” – which is partially why the company is seeking sanctions against the attorneys on the case.
"We knew they didn’t have any evidence," Goodman told the court on Thursday. "We provided evidence to them. And they ignored all that. And that’s not OK. That’s not what a plaintiff is supposed to do — you’re supposed to do due diligence."
If the case had merit, he added, lawyers wouldn’t have agreed to dismiss it “just because their client got pregnant.”
Subway welcomed the final dismissal of the lawsuit on its website, and criticized how the lawsuit damaged the reputation of the quality of the company’s tuna.
“The lawsuit and the plaintiff's meritless claims, which have always lacked any supporting evidence, resulted in the spread of harmful misinformation and caused damage to Subway franchisees and the brand,” Subway said. “We are pleased with the Court’s decision to dismiss the case.”
The company added that it continues to maintain its website, SubwayTunaFacts.com.
“We created this page in response to a meritless lawsuit that falsely questioned the quality of Subway’s tuna,” the company states on the site. “The truth of the matter has always been that Subway’s tuna is high-quality, premium, and 100 percent real.”
Photo courtesy of Prachana Thong-on/Shutterstock
