Case alleges that Subway tuna sandwiches “have no trace of tuna”

Two people are suing the sandwich maker in California, claiming that the tuna the company sells is anything but tuna.

“In reality, the products do not contain tuna nor do they have any ingredients that constitute tuna,” plaintiffs Karen Dhanowa and Nilima Amin claim in court documents filed with the US District Court for the Northern District of California.

Dhanowa and Amin say they were “tricked” into buying foods with wrong labels and that an independent laboratory tested “several samples” and determined that “the ingredients were neither tuna nor fish,” said lawyer Shalini Dogra.

Dogra said the lab tests found that Subway’s tuna is actually “a mix of various mixes” that have been mixed to give them the look of tuna. He declined to specify what the laboratory tests allegedly found in the “mixture”.

Subway did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but the company says on its website that “it only sells skipjack and yellowfin tuna”.

The lawsuit also accuses Subway of trying to “capitalize on the premium price consumers are willing to pay for tuna,” the only seafood item on the menu.

It is not the first time that Subway has been the subject of a lawsuit over its sandwiches.

Last year, a Subway franchisee in Ireland lost a tax case after the Supreme Court ruled that sandwich bread had too much sugar to meet the legal definition of bread, which has zero value-added tax in the country.

In 2017, a U.S. appeals court opened a case alleging that Subway’s “long” sandwiches weren’t really a foot long.