A lawsuit filed by a California woman who claimed that Subway’s tuna products don’t in fact contain any tuna has been dismissed.
The plaintiff, Nilima Amin, and the sandwich chain have “come to agreement regarding dismissing the case with prejudice”, meaning it cannot be brought again, court records show. Subway, with nearly 37,000 restaurants in more than 100 countries, said it welcomed US district judge Jon Tigar’s decision on Thursday to dismiss the case.
The dismissal brings to a close Subway’s tuna saga, which began in 2021 when Amin and another customer filed a lawsuit claiming the company’s tuna sandwiches, salads and wraps were made of “anything but tuna”.
Since the lawsuit was filed in 2021, questions have swirled about whether or not the sandwich chain’s tuna was actually tuna. Subway vigorously defended itself, insisting that it used only “high-quality, premium and 100% real” tuna and even launching the website subwaytunafacts.com.
As the legal battle unfolded, news media investigated whether or not the company’s sandwiches were filled with tuna or mystery meat.
The New York Times published an investigation after the lawsuit was filed in 2021 wherein a reporter sent some of Subway’s tuna to a food testing lab that found that either Subway’s tuna was so processed that any amounts couldn’t be found by testing or that a substance other than the fish was being used in sandwiches.
However, Inside Edition conducted a similar experiment and the lab they used found that Subway was using real tuna.
Despite the company’s consistent claims they serve real tuna, the lawsuit has sparked endless memes and jokes centered around the allegation that Subway has been passing off a mystery substance as tuna. Jessica Simpson, the singer who famously pondered whether Chicken of the Sea brand tuna was fish or poultry, even got a joke tweet off about the controversy.
In May of this year, Amin asked to withdraw the lawsuit because she had become pregnant and was experiencing “severe” morning sickness and “debilitating” conditions that left her unable to remain a plaintiff.
That prompted Subway to demand sanctions, saying Amin’s proposed exit reflected her lawyers’ realization it would not pay a “windfall settlement” in their “high-profile shakedown”. Amin’s lawyers said she had a “good faith, non-frivolous basis based on testing and evidence that there was something amiss” with Subway tuna.
Judge Tigar will later rule on Subway’s request that Amin’s lawyers be sanctioned for bringing a frivolous class action that has “caused damage to Subway franchisees and the brand”.
“Subway serves 100% real, wild-caught tuna,” the chain said in a statement. “The lawsuit and the plaintiff’s meritless claims, which have always lacked any supporting evidence, resulted in the spread of harmful misinformation.”
