Subway may face a lawsuit over claims its tuna sandwich contains 100% tuna

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.