Subway: Difference between revisions
added intro and incidents |
|||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
This is a list of all consumer-protection incidents this company is involved in. Any incidents not mentioned here can be found in the [[:Category:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|{{PAGENAME}} category]]. | This is a list of all consumer-protection incidents this company is involved in. Any incidents not mentioned here can be found in the [[:Category:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|{{PAGENAME}} category]]. | ||
===Hepatitis found in Subway=== | ===Hepatitis found in Subway=== | ||
In September 1999, an increasing number of hepatitis-A cases began surfacing around individuals located in Northeast Seattle and Snohomish County Washington, resulting in health officials conducting an survey on infected individuals that resulted in 18 of 21 reported gaining Hepatitis-A at a Subway location by November 5. Later on, it was confirmed that 6 more individuals gained hepatitis-A after eating at two Subway locations. It is estimated that 40 people had became ill because of the outbreak, with some cases resulting in individuals being hospitalized, however most recovered from their illness.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Marler |first=Bill |date=7 March 2010 |title=Subway hit with another foodborne illness outbreak – this time bacteria, not viral |url=https://www.foodpoisonjournal.com/foodborne-illness-outbreaks/subway-hit-with-another-foodborne-illness-outbreak-this-time-bacteria-not-viral/ |url-status=live |access-date=12 March 2026 |website=Marler Clark}}</ref> | |||
This resulted in several lawsuits from affected individuals , with one containing 29 affected individuals reaching a $1.06 million settlement in 2000.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web |date=3 July 2001 |title=Subway settles hepatitis suit for $10 million |url=https://www.deseret.com/2001/7/3/19594580/subway-settles-hepatitis-suit-for-10-million/ |url-status=live |access-date=12 March 2026 |website=Dessert News}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=15 August 2000 |title=USA: Seattle Law Firm Obtains $1.06 Million Settlement On Behalf of Hepatitis Outbreak Victims |url=https://www.just-food.com/news/usa-seattle-law-firm-obtains-1-06-million-settlement-on-behalf-of-hepatitis-outbreak-victims/?cf-view |url-status=live |access-date=12 March 2026 |website=Just Food}}</ref> Another lawsuit was filed in February 2000 by families members after Christian Decker (who was 6 at the time) was hit with Hepatitis-A after him and his family went to Subway in September 1999. Christian Decker was hospitalized at Children's Hospital & Regional Medical Center, where he had to obtain an liver and a undisclosed transplant, resulting in him being on immuno-suppressants drugs for the rest of his life. In a per-trial hearing, subway was denied exemption from the case, however the details surrounding the attempt remained unknown. Around June 2001, a $10 million settlement was reached that required the Doctor Association pay $6 million, Subway Northwest $2 million, and Thomas Sandstedt and Lisa Nguyen $2 million.<ref name=":1" /><ref name=":2">{{Cite web |last=Bartley |first=Nancy |date=3 July 2001 |title=Subway to pay $10 million to settle boy's hepatitis suit |url=https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/20010703/subway03m0/subway-to-pay-10-million-to-settle-boys-hepatitis-suit |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260313045628/https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/20010703/subway03m0/subway-to-pay-10-million-to-settle-boys-hepatitis-suit |archive-date=13 March 2026 |access-date=12 March 2026 |website=The Seattle Times}}</ref> | |||
Mark Honeywell, attorney for subway, responded to the aftermath of the situation by saying "it's hard to find a more deserving plaintiff". He states that the company should've been exempt from the suit because the company had no control over the employees and have "only a contract for making inspections".<ref name=":2" /> | |||
===Footlong aren't really a foot long=== | ===Footlong aren't really a foot long=== | ||
In 2013, several customers filed lawsuits against Subway product "Footlong" for being less than 12 inches, claiming they were believed to bought a product that 12 inches in length as advertised. Subway initially responded by saying the Footlong sandwich is only a name, not an measurement as its a creative license. Along with claims of the Footlong sandwich allegedly not being 12 inches, the | [[File:Subway plaintiff's Footlong Sub.png|alt=Subway's Footlong Lawsuit for plaintiff showcasing a Footlong being 10 inches.|thumb|Subway's Footlong Lawsuit product]] | ||
In 2013, several customers filed lawsuits against Subway product "Footlong" for being less than 12 inches, claiming they were believed to bought a product that 12 inches in length as advertised. Subway initially responded by saying the Footlong sandwich is only a name, not an measurement as its a creative license. Along with claims of the Footlong sandwich allegedly not being 12 inches, the plaintiffs also claims subways 6 inch subs are shorter than advertised due to employees cutting the Footlong in half.<ref>{{Cite web |date=12 March 2026 |title=UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN |url=https://business.cch.com/ald/SubwayFootlongSandwichLitigationComplaint.pdf |url-status=live |access-date=12 March 2026 |website=cch.com}}</ref> | |||
The lawsuit reached a settlement in 2015, compensating customers who ordered between January 1, 2003 through October 2 2015 $500, and gave the plaintiffs $520,000 for attorney fees.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Luperon |first=Alberto |date=19 | The lawsuit reached a settlement in 2015, compensating customers who ordered between January 1, 2003 through October 2 2015 $500, and gave the plaintiffs $520,000 for attorney fees.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Luperon |first=Alberto |date=19 February 2026 |title=Subway Settles Lawsuit Claiming 'Footlongs' Were Too Short |url=https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/subway-settles-lawsuit-claiming-footlongs-were-too-short/ |url-status=live |access-date=12 March 2026 |website=Law&Crime}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Bucher |first=Anne |date=19 October 2015 |title=Subway Footlong Sandwich Class Action Settlement |url=https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/closed-settlements/subway-footlong-sandwich-class-action-settlement/ |url-status=live |access-date=12 March 2026 |website=Top Class Action}}</ref> | ||
===Product not completely tuna<!-- someone please check over this, this may be really innacurate as varying infomration gave varying stories and conteract one another. -->=== | ===Product not completely tuna<!-- someone please check over this, this may be really innacurate as varying infomration gave varying stories and conteract one another. -->=== | ||
| Line 38: | Line 44: | ||
===Unsolicited Text History=== | ===Unsolicited Text History=== | ||
In June 2016, David Rahmany and Yehuda Rahmany filed a lawsuit against T-mobile and Subway after receiving a text message from T-mobile that reads; ""This T-Mobile Tuesday, Score a free 6 Oven Roasted Chicken sub at Subway, just for being w/ T-Mobile. Ltd supply. Get app for details: http://t-mo.co/ " The plaintiffs claimed it violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, allegedly using an autodialer to spam T-mobile users an Subway 6-inch Oven Roasted Chicken sub advertisement.<ref>{{Cite web |date=10 March 2026 |title=UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON |url=https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.236049.1.0.pdf |url-status=live |access-date=10 March 2026 |website=CourtListener}}</ref> On September 8, the plaintiffs dropped their claims against T-mobile, however the motive remains unknown.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Milano |first=Ashley |date=5 October 2016 |title=Subway, T-Mobile Face Text Message Class Action Lawsuit |url=https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/consumer-products/subway-t-mobile-face-text-message-class-action-lawsuit/ |url-status=live |access-date=10 March 2026 |website=Top Class Action}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=10 March 2026 |title=NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANT T-MOBILE USA, INC. PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a)(1)(A) WITHOUT PREJUDICE |url=https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.236049.5.0.pdf |url-status=live |access-date=10 March 2026 |website=CourtListener}}</ref> The case is still in progress as of March 2026. | In June 2016, David Rahmany and Yehuda Rahmany filed a lawsuit against [[T-Mobile US|T-mobile]] and Subway after receiving a text message from T-mobile that reads; ""This T-Mobile Tuesday, Score a free 6 Oven Roasted Chicken sub at Subway, just for being w/ T-Mobile. Ltd supply. Get app for details: http://t-mo.co/ " The plaintiffs claimed it violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, allegedly using an autodialer to spam T-mobile users an Subway 6-inch Oven Roasted Chicken sub advertisement.<ref>{{Cite web |date=10 March 2026 |title=UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON |url=https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.236049.1.0.pdf |url-status=live |access-date=10 March 2026 |website=CourtListener}}</ref> On September 8, the plaintiffs dropped their claims against T-mobile, however the motive remains unknown.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Milano |first=Ashley |date=5 October 2016 |title=Subway, T-Mobile Face Text Message Class Action Lawsuit |url=https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/consumer-products/subway-t-mobile-face-text-message-class-action-lawsuit/ |url-status=live |access-date=10 March 2026 |website=Top Class Action}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=10 March 2026 |title=NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANT T-MOBILE USA, INC. PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a)(1)(A) WITHOUT PREJUDICE |url=https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.236049.5.0.pdf |url-status=live |access-date=10 March 2026 |website=CourtListener}}</ref> The case is still in progress as of March 2026. | ||
in April 2019, subway was sued by Marina Soliman for repeatedly sending promotional advertisements to customers regardless if they responded to opt-out with "stop". She claimed that through use of an automatic dialing system containing a list of phone numbers from customers, it constitutes as a violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Smith |first=Anna |date=19 July 2022 |title=Subway class action over unsolicited spam texts dismissed |url=https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/tcpa/arbitration-not-an-option-for-subway-unwanted-texts-class-action-lawsuit/ |url-status=live |access-date=10 March 2026 |website=Top Class Action}}</ref> The case was dismissed on July 18, 2022, claiming the Telephone Consumer Protection Act applies to randomly or sequentially generated phone numbers systems and "artificial or prerecorded voices" doesn't apply to text messages.<ref>{{Cite web |date=10 May 2024 |title=UNITED STATES C OURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND C IRCUIT |url=https://www.consumerfinancialserviceslawmonitor.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/880/2024/05/Soliman-v.-Subway-Franchisee-Advertising-Trust-opinion.pdf |url-status=live |access-date=10 March 2026 |website=Lawmonitor}}</ref> | in April 2019, subway was sued by Marina Soliman for repeatedly sending promotional advertisements to customers regardless if they responded to opt-out with "stop". She claimed that through use of an automatic dialing system containing a list of phone numbers from customers, it constitutes as a violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Smith |first=Anna |date=19 July 2022 |title=Subway class action over unsolicited spam texts dismissed |url=https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/tcpa/arbitration-not-an-option-for-subway-unwanted-texts-class-action-lawsuit/ |url-status=live |access-date=10 March 2026 |website=Top Class Action}}</ref> The case was dismissed on July 18, 2022, claiming the Telephone Consumer Protection Act applies to randomly or sequentially generated phone numbers systems and "artificial or prerecorded voices" doesn't apply to text messages.<ref>{{Cite web |date=10 May 2024 |title=UNITED STATES C OURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND C IRCUIT |url=https://www.consumerfinancialserviceslawmonitor.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/880/2024/05/Soliman-v.-Subway-Franchisee-Advertising-Trust-opinion.pdf |url-status=live |access-date=10 March 2026 |website=Lawmonitor}}</ref> | ||
| Line 55: | Line 61: | ||
===Giving less meat than advertised to customers=== | ===Giving less meat than advertised to customers=== | ||
On October 28, 2024, Anna Tollison filed a lawsuit against Subway for engaging in deceptive marketing practices that advertised the product Steak & Cheese sandwich containing 200% more meat than customers received.<ref>{{Cite web |date=28 October 2024 |title=IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK |url=https://www.classaction.org/media/tollison-v-subway-restaurants-inc-et-al.pdf |url-status=live |access-date=10 March 2026 |website=ClassAction}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=30 October 2024 |title=Subway sandwiches are short on meat, lawsuit claims |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/subway-sandwiches-short-meat-lawsuit-claims-rcna177921 |url-status=live |access-date=10 March 2026 |website=NBC News}}</ref> As of March 2026, the lawsuit is still ongoing. | On October 28, 2024, Anna Tollison filed a lawsuit against Subway for engaging in deceptive marketing practices that advertised the product Steak & Cheese sandwich containing 200% more meat than customers received.<ref>{{Cite web |date=28 October 2024 |title=IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK |url=https://www.classaction.org/media/tollison-v-subway-restaurants-inc-et-al.pdf |url-status=live |access-date=10 March 2026 |website=ClassAction}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=30 October 2024 |title=Subway sandwiches are short on meat, lawsuit claims |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/subway-sandwiches-short-meat-lawsuit-claims-rcna177921 |url-status=live |access-date=10 March 2026 |website=NBC News}}</ref> As of March 2026, the lawsuit is still ongoing. | ||
[[File:Subway | [[File:Subway Steak & Cheese actual received product.png|thumb|Subway Steak & Cheese received]] | ||
===Coupon ineligibility=== | ===Coupon ineligibility=== | ||
| Line 66: | Line 72: | ||
==See also== | ==See also== | ||
*[[McDonald's]] | *[[McDonald's]] | ||
*[[Arby's]] | *[[Arby's]] | ||