Lawsuit claims Subway tuna sandwich does not contain tuna

Subway is facing a scandalous $5 million lawsuit after two customers from the Bay Area in California claimed the sandwich company's tuna was fake.

Instead, according to a lawsuit filed by two California residents last week, what Subway passes off as tuna is "a mixture of various concoctions that do not constitute tuna, yet have been blended together by defendants to imitate the appearance of tuna".

Subway denies this and claims not only is it tuna but the fish is wild-caught "pure" tuna.

In a mail to The Washington Post, it is reported that she wrote that the main ingredient is made of anything but tuna and they found that 'ingredients were not tuna and not fish'.

Alex Brown, an attorney with the Lanier Law Firm who is representing Dhanowa and Amin in the case, said they are trying to determine what ingredients are used in Subway's tuna.

If they would have known about the ingredients used in the tuna, the plaintiffs insist they would have either paid less or not have purchased the product.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges Subway's tuna is "made from anything but tuna". He also stated that the tuna sandwich is one of the Subway's most popular products because of its taste and quality.

Subway's website now lists a tuna sandwich as "flaked tuna blended with creamy mayo then topped with your choice of crisp, fresh veggies".

This isn't the first time Subway has been accused of deceptive practices. Ireland's Supreme Court in September ruled that the bread Subway uses in its sandwiches could not legally be called bread because of its high sugar content. In 2015, the company was dealt with a class-action lawsuit claiming its footlong sandwiches were actually shorter than 12 inches.