Gold and Silver Prices Rebound After Volatile Week Triggered by Fed Nomination 
Australian Scandium Project Backed by Richard Friedland Poised to Support U.S. Critical Minerals Stockpile 
OpenAI Expands Enterprise AI Strategy With Major Hiring Push Ahead of New Business Offering 
South Korea’s Weak Won Struggles as Retail Investors Pour Money Into U.S. Stocks 
U.S. Stock Futures Slide as Tech Rout Deepens on Amazon Capex Shock 
FDA Targets Hims & Hers Over $49 Weight-Loss Pill, Raising Legal and Safety Concerns 
Dollar Steadies Ahead of ECB and BoE Decisions as Markets Turn Risk-Off 
U.S. Stock Futures Edge Higher as Tech Rout Deepens on AI Concerns and Earnings 
Missouri Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Challenging Starbucks’ Diversity and Inclusion Policies 
Global PC Makers Eye Chinese Memory Chip Suppliers Amid Ongoing Supply Crunch 
Singapore Budget 2026 Set for Fiscal Prudence as Growth Remains Resilient 
Thailand Inflation Remains Negative for 10th Straight Month in January 
AMD Shares Slide Despite Earnings Beat as Cautious Revenue Outlook Weighs on Stock 
Amazon Stock Rebounds After Earnings as $200B Capex Plan Sparks AI Spending Debate 
Once Upon a Farm Raises Nearly $198 Million in IPO, Valued at Over $724 Million 
Instagram Outage Disrupts Thousands of U.S. Users 
Baidu Approves $5 Billion Share Buyback and Plans First-Ever Dividend in 2026 
Subway sandwich fast-food chain may be sued according to a U.S. judge. A possible lawsuit may be filed against the company for claims that its tuna products only contain 100% tuna.
As per NBC News, a federal judge in California ruled on Monday, July 11, that Subway may have been misleading customers when it said its tuna sandwiches do not have other fish species and simply purely tuna. The sandwich chain asserted that the detection of any other ingredients in its tuna sandwiches may have resulted from simple cross-contamination while the food was being prepared.
The claims on Subway's tuna products were said to be based on testing carried out at the UCLA marine biology laboratory. Paul Barber, the biologist who did the tests, is not available for comment on the matter, but the sandwich retail store brand responded by saying the results likely turned out that way due to cross-contact of its employees who are preparing the sandwich.
In any case, the lawsuit was originally filed by Nilima Amin in January of last year. She claimed that Subway's tuna products have other fish species contrary to what the company is advertising. She said the tuna sandwich "partially or wholly lacks tuna as an ingredient" and "contains other fish species, animal products, or miscellaneous products aside from tuna."
With Subway's response, U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar said. That even if there was cross-contamination while the sandwich was being prepared, the "100% tuna" claim might still be inaccurate. Thus, the company could still be sued, and the judge is reportedly expecting Amin and her lawyers to file an amended complaint.
"Although it is possible that Subway's explanations are the correct ones, it is also possible that these allegations refer to ingredients that a reasonable consumer would not reasonably expect to find in a tuna product," the judge stated.
Finally, Reuters further reported that Judge Tigar also said it is still premature to accept Subway's explanation that the presence of non-tuna DNA found during the testing may have been from the eggs in mayonnaise or cross-contact with other ingredients that the employees handle in the restaurants.
