Karen Dhanova and Nilima Amin, a resident of Alameda County (California), ordered fish sandwiches with tuna in one of the Subway cafes, and found that the advertised tuna was allegedly not there. And, as it should be in our country, a lawsuit was filed in the District Federal Court of Northern California, demanding for the “physical and mental damage” incurred as a result of eating these sandwiches, compensation in a tidy sum – $ 5 million.
Although the sandwiches were eaten last year, the lawsuit was not filed until a few months later. Apparently, the sandwiches were “tested,” as the lawsuit clearly states: “repeated independent testing has shown that the sandwiches were made from anything but tuna.” In fact, the plaintiff continues with indignation, the sandwiches were “a mixture of various non-tuna products, but they were mixed by the defendant in such a way as to mimic tuna.” And the cafe “did it on purpose” to save money, as mixed fish products from other species are cheaper than genuine tuna.
In conclusion, the plaintiffs accuse Subway of fraud, deliberate “deceit”, negligent advertising of their products and unfair enrichment at the expense of customers. The women asked the judge to give their claim a collective nature, so that “other people who bought the ‘tuna sandwiches’ can receive compensation for the damage suffered.”
A network spokesman called the plaintiffs’ claims “unfounded” and “frivolous.” “It’s just not true,” said a network spokesman. “Subway supplies its restaurants with 100% boiled tuna that is mixed with mayonnaise and used with freshly baked sandwiches, wraps and salads that are popular with our guests.” The network intends to “vigorously defend itself” against any unfounded attempts to defame their high quality products, and if the claim is not immediately dismissed, use “every authority available to them.”
Newspaper headline:
And where is the fish? ..