Consumer Rights Wiki

Subway: Difference between revisions

← Older editNewer edit →
VisualWikitext
mNo edit summary
SquidthePlummer (talk | contribs)
confirmed
604 edits
added 1 incident, though need to be SEVERELY checked up on
Line 10: Line 10:
{{Ph-C-Int}}
{{Ph-C-Int}}


[[wikipedia:Subway_(restaurant)|Subway IP LLC]] is also a company =)
[[wikipedia:Subway_(restaurant)|Subway IP LLC]] is also a company =)  


==Consumer-impact summary==
==Consumer-impact summary==
Line 28: Line 28:
https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/closed-settlements/subway-footlong-sandwich-class-action-settlement/
https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/closed-settlements/subway-footlong-sandwich-class-action-settlement/


===Product not completely tuna===
===Product not completely tuna<!-- someone please check over this, this may be really innacurate as varying infomration gave varying stories and conteract one another.  -->===
https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/consumer-products/food/subway-urges-judge-to-toss-tuna-sandwich-class-action/
Karen Dhanowa and Nilima Amin filed a lawsuit against Subway in January 21, 2021 over the company's deceptive advertising practices regarding and a lab study conducted by Paul Barber showcasing Subways tuna being a mix of chicken, cattle, and pork. The plaintiffs  claimed they were deceived into buying food items that lacked tuna.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Rizzi |first=Corrado |date=19 February 2021 |title=Subway 'Tuna' Products Contain No Real Tuna Whatsoever, Class Action Claims [UPDATE] |url=https://www.classaction.org/news/subway-tuna-products-contain-no-real-tuna-whatsoever-class-action-claims |url-status=live |access-date=10 March 2026 |website=ClassAction}}</ref>  On June 7, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, alleging the company "misrepresents its products as %100 tuna". The case was dismissed with leave to amend on October 7, 2021, with the judge citing failure to" identify the specific representation that Subway made about the tuna".<ref>{{Cite web |last=Edwards |first=Jessy |date=14 August 2023 |title=Judge dismisses 100% tuna class action against Subway |url=https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/consumer-products/food/subway-tuna-lawsuit-dismissed-but-plaintiffs-can-file-again-judge-says/ |url-status=live |access-date=10 March 2026 |website=Top Class Action}}</ref><ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=Firstman |first=AJ |date=7 August 2023 |title=Subway Tuna Lawsuit Gets Canned |url=https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/legally-weird/subway-tuna-lawsuit-gets-canned/ |url-status=live |access-date=12 March 2026 |website=Findlaw}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Wile |first=Rob |date=11 July 2022 |title=Judge rules Subway can be sued over claims that its tuna sandwiches contain other fish species or animal products |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/judge-rules-subway-can-sued-claims-tuna-sandwiches-contain-fish-specie-rcna37707 |url-status=live |access-date=12 March 2026 |website=NBC News}}</ref>


https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/consumer-products/food/subway-tuna-lawsuit-dismissed-but-plaintiffs-can-file-again-judge-says/
The plaintiffs then made a second amended complaint, alleging subway tuna products are a mix of various animal and fish products due to the products lacking any trace of tuna DNA.<ref name=":0" /> Subway responded by claiming the tests was inaccurate, claiming it can come from cross contamination with other ingredients. The judge dismissed the case without prejudice on July 8, 2022, claiming a lack of evidence.<ref>{{Cite web |date=12 March 2026 |title=UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA |url=https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/amin-subway-mtd-order.pdf |url-status=live |access-date=12 March 2026 |website=Courthouse News}}</ref>


===Credit Card Information Showing on Customers Receipts===
A spokesperson from subway responded to the dismissal, citing;<blockquote>“The second complaint was rightfully dismissed by a federal judge. Our legal team has reviewed the plaintiffs’ newly amended complaint and has filed a second motion to dismiss this reckless and improper lawsuit. The fact remains that Subway tuna is real and strictly regulated by the FDA in the U.S. and other government entities around the world"</blockquote>https://www.npr.org/2022/07/13/1111270816/subway-tuna-lawsuit
https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/class-action-settlement-checks-mailed/subway-credit-card-receipts-settlement-checks-mailed/
 
https://www.fox13news.com/news/judge-subway-can-be-sued-tuna-claim
 
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/judge-rules-subway-can-sued-claims-tuna-sandwiches-contain-fish-specie-rcna37707


https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/closed-settlements/subway-credit-card-receipt-class-action-settlement/  
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/subway-tuna-lawsuit-dismissed/


https://www.classaction.org/news/purchase-of-turkey-salad-leads-to-facta-class-action-against-subway
===Credit Card Information Showing on Customers Receipts===
Estimated around June 3 2016, Shane Flaum purchased a turkey salad from Subway, receiving an receipt that showcased the expiration date and last 4 digits of his debit card number. A few days later, Shane Flaum filed a lawsuit against Subway for violating the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, seeking $1000 in damages for each illegal receipt over the last two years that covers more than five digits of individuals credit/debit card or expiration dates.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Rizzi |first=Corrado |date=14 November 2016 |title=Purchase of Turkey Salad Leads to FACTA Class Action Against Subway |url=https://www.classaction.org/news/purchase-of-turkey-salad-leads-to-facta-class-action-against-subway |url-status=live |access-date=8 March 2026 |website=ClassAction}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Dugan |first=James |last2=Bower |first2=Elizabeth |last3=Alvarez |first3=Daniel |date=23 March 2017 |title=Subway Settles FACTA Class Action Lawsuit for Record-Breaking $30.9 Million in Bellwether for High-Stakes Data Privacy Litigation |url=https://www.willkie.com/-/media/files/publications/2017/03/subway_settles_facta_class_action_lawsuit.pdf |url-status=live |access-date=12 March 2026 |website=Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP}}</ref> On March 21, 2017, Subway reached a $30.9 million settlement compensating customers credit/debit card orders between January 1, 2016 and March 23, 2017, varying up to $52.92 per customer.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Sortor |first=Emily |date=31 May 2019 |title=Subway Credit Card Receipts Settlement Checks Mailed |url=https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/class-action-settlement-checks-mailed/subway-credit-card-receipts-settlement-checks-mailed/ |url-status=live |access-date=12 March 2026 |website=Top Class Action}}</ref>


===Unsolicited Text History===
===Unsolicited Text History===
In June 2016, David Rahmany and Yehuda Rahmany filed a lawsuit against T-mobile and Subway for 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
In June 2016, David Rahmany and Yehuda Rahmany filed a lawsuit against T-mobile and Subway for 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 plantiffs 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.   
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 plantiffs 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 even after responding 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 even after responding 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 2019, Malka Fishman sued Subway and T-mobile for allegedly sending messages using automatic telephone dialing system from T-Mobile that contains Subway/T-Mobile promotional advertising. She claims she gave consent to receiving text messages from T-Mobile regarding its wireless telephone services, however she gave the company no consent towards receiving advertisement messages from subway. The court granted motion to denied several dismissals;<ref>{{Cite web |date=10 March 2026 |title=United States District Court
In 2019, Malka Fishman sued Subway and T-mobile for allegedly sending messages using automatic telephone dialing system from T-Mobile that contains Subway/T-Mobile promotional advertising. She claims she gave consent to receiving text messages from T-Mobile regarding its wireless telephone services, however she gave the company no consent towards receiving advertisement messages from subway. The court granted motion to denied several dismissals;<ref>{{Cite web |date=10 March 2026 |title=United States District Court Central District of California |url=https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/california/cacdce/2:2019cv02444/741648/37/0.pdf?ts=1574245847 |url-status=live |access-date=10 March 2026 |website=Justia}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Sortor |first=Emily |date=17 April 2019 |title=Subway Class Action Says ‘Free Sub’ Texts Violate Federal Law |url=https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/tcpa/subway-class-action-says-free-sub-texts-violate-federal-law/ |url-status=live |access-date=10 March 2026 |website=Top Class Action}}</ref>
Central District of California |url=https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/california/cacdce/2:2019cv02444/741648/37/0.pdf?ts=1574245847 |url-status=live |access-date=10 March 2026 |website=Justia}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Sortor |first=Emily |date=17 April 2019 |title=Subway Class Action Says ‘Free Sub’ Texts Violate Federal Law |url=https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/tcpa/subway-class-action-says-free-sub-texts-violate-federal-law/ |url-status=live |access-date=10 March 2026 |website=Top Class Action}}</ref>


*Subway is found liable for sending messages via Automatic telephone dialing system
*Subway is found liable for sending messages via Automatic telephone dialing system
Retrieved from "https://consumerrights.wiki/w/Subway"