A steak and cheese with the lot, topped with aioli and Thousand Island sauce. That’s my usual Subway order, and I’m sure most people have their own locked inside their little brains. However, somewhere in the world there are people who frequently purchase tuna wraps from Subway (couldn’t be me, chief). Turns out though that the tuna might not even be real fish at all. Yikes.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news Subway tuna fans, but a new lawsuit over in the U.S. is claiming that the mystery meat in a Subway tuna roll doesn’t contain any tuna, or even any fish, at all.

The plaintiffs, Karen Dhanowa and Nilima Amin, filed the claim in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. They’re suing Subway for fraud, intentional misrepresentation and unjust enrichment, on the basis that they believe there is no fish in the Subway tuna.

I mean no tuna is one thing, but no fish? What is even real anymore.

-In their claim, they allege that they “were tricked into buying food items that wholly lacked the ingredients they reasonably thought they were purchasing.”

They continue: “[Subway] is saving substantial sums of money in manufacturing the products because the fabricated ingredient they use in the place of tuna costs less money.”

Absolutely huge if true. Just to be clear though, we’re not talking about the Australian Subway chains here, only U.S. ones.

You may be wondering, what is the mystery meat if not tuna? Well, Dhanowa and Amin also claim [in the lawsuit] to have done “multiple tests” and this is what they’ve discovered.

“A mixture of various concoctions that do not constitute tuna, yet have been blended together by defendants (Subway) to imitate the appearance of tuna.”

Subway has denied the claims, telling The Washington Post and Daily Mail that their tuna is not only 100% real, but wild-caught as well.

“Subway delivers 100 per cent cooked tuna to its restaurants, which is mixed with mayonnaise and used in freshly made sandwiches, wraps and salads that are served to and enjoyed by our guests,” a spokesperson told Daily Mail.

“Indeed, there is no basis in law or fact for the plaintiffs’ claims, which are frivolous and are being pursued without adequate investigation.”

I guess we’ll just have to see how this one goes. It helps to remember that back in October, Ireland’s Supreme Court ruled that Subway bread isn’t actually bread. The court found Subway’s bread contained too much sugar to be legally called bread.

PEDESTRIAN.TV has reached out to Subway for comment, more to come as things unfold.

Image: SUBWAY