Saudi Oil Tankers Reverse Course as Houthi Threats Disrupt Red Sea Shipping 
KPMG Australia Appoints John Sams as CEO Following Audit Leak Scandal 
GE Vernova Q2 Revenue Tops Estimates as Earnings Miss, Shares Slide Despite Higher 2026 Outlook 
Rubio Rejects AI ‘Kill Switch’ Claims as U.S. Defends American Technology Abroad 
Pakistan Seeks $10 Billion U.S. Exchange Stabilization Fund to Boost Forex Reserves 
Scandinavian Tobacco Group Sells BREAK and Moro Brands to Japan Tobacco for €176 Million 
Trump Set to Unveil New Tariffs on Dozens of Countries as Global 10% Duty Nears Expiration 
Samsung Eyes Up to $1.14 Billion Investment in AI Startup Mistral 
Asian Currencies Hold Steady as Middle East Tensions Boost US Dollar, Oil Concerns 
US Dollar Climbs to Weekly High as Middle East Tensions Lift Treasury Yields and Safe-Haven Demand 
Alaska Air Q3 Outlook Misses Estimates as Higher Fuel Costs Weigh on Profit Forecast 
Nike Shifts China Online Sales Strategy to Boost Brand and Fight Local Rivals 
GM Q2 Earnings Beat Estimates as General Motors Raises 2026 Profit Outlook 
Chalco Shares Jump as Chinalco Plans Up to $300 Million Stake Increase 
Wistron Opens $700M Texas AI Factory to Build Nvidia Superchips in U.S. 
Gold Price Jumps Near 2% Above $4,080 as Middle East Tensions Lift Safe-Haven Demand 
Japan CPI Rises in June, but Core Inflation Stays Below BOJ’s 2% Target 
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.
