Subway: Difference between revisions
incidnet added |
added intro and incidents |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
|Type=Private | |Type=Private | ||
|Website=https://www.subway.com/en-us | |Website=https://www.subway.com/en-us | ||
}} | }}Founded in 1965, [[wikipedia:Subway_(restaurant)|Subway IP LLC]] is an American food restaurant specializing in submarine sandwiches with 20,127 locations in the United States. | ||
[[wikipedia:Subway_(restaurant)|Subway IP LLC]] is | |||
==Consumer-impact summary== | ==Consumer-impact summary== | ||
| Line 18: | 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=== | ||
{{Main|link to the main CR Wiki article}} | {{Main|link to the main CR Wiki article}}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.<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 a lawsuit after a 8 year old went to the hospital to get a liver implant after catching Hepatitis-A, eventually reaching a $10 million settlement.<ref>{{Cite web |date=3 July 2001 |title=Subway settles hepatitis suit for $10 million |url=Subway settles hepatitis suit for $10 million |url-status=live |access-date=https://www.deseret.com/2001/7/3/19594580/subway-settles-hepatitis-suit-for-10-million/ |website=Dessert News}}</ref> [[File:Plantiff Footlong .png|alt=Subway's Footlong Lawsuit for plantiff showcasing a footlong being 10 inches |thumb|Subway's Footlong Lawsuit product ]] | ||
[[File:Plantiff Footlong .png|alt=Subway's Footlong Lawsuit for plantiff showcasing a footlong being 10 inches |thumb|Subway's Footlong Lawsuit product ]] | |||
===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 plantiffs 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> | 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 plantiffs 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> | ||
| Line 44: | Line 38: | ||
===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 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 | 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 April 2019, subway was sued by Marina Soliman for repeatedly sending promotional advertisements | 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 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> | 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> | ||