Even after the verdict, the Subway tuna lawsuit still dominates the news cycle. Third lawsuit against tuna brought by Nilioma Amin and Karen Dhanova against changed tuna was rejected by the judge of the US District Court last week.
Subway Dissatisfied With The Court’s Decision
Earlier this year, residents of Alameda County filed a complaint alleging that they were tricked into paying more for tuna because they were led to believe that the Subway brand contained no animal-based fish at all.
There was no significant ruling on Subway tuna when the plaintiffs at UCLA used DNA barcode testing to indicate that the tunas collected from the southern California Subway outlets had chicken DNA, pig and bovine DNA, although no tuna samples had been discovered.
Subway, on the other hand, turned up and said that the fish included in the sandwiches was wild-caught tuna. The company’s legal counsel filed a motion the next month asking for the action to be dismissed with prejudice.
Dhanova and Amin’s accusations were rejected by US District Court Judge John S. Tigar, who determined that the lawsuit should be dropped since Dhanova could not provide strong evidence to support his assertions. The court also rejected the Plaintiffs’ claims that Subway was not selling 100% tuna, but was instead manipulating customers.
According to the firm, a sandwich contains mayonnaise and other contents, and any animal DNA found would come from the eggs used to make the mayonnaise. This reasoning persuaded Tiger. They also pointed out that their chefs use the same gloves, utensils, and other key gear to prepare several dishes, which may have resulted in some mismatching in the components.
There are several things that aren’t acceptable before the court, however, including that customers can only accept such offences to specific extents, so these arguments aren’t really genuine.
Marc C Goodman, a spokesman for Subway, closed his remarks by expressing disappointment with the court’s decision, which he said had harmed Subway’s reputation. He went on to say that although the court had agreed at the last minute to the Plaintiffs’ complaints, it is logical that the subway would continue to refer to its tuna as the tuna in its entirety.
Goodman further stated that they were confident in defeating the Plaintiffs‘ bogus charges one by one because the company could not allow the court to rule on a spurious claim of DNA tests without specifying the technique they favoured.
Clint Eastwood’s Trademark Infringement Case Wins $2 Million Legal Action Against Fake CBD Endorsement