Subway Tuna Lawsuit, Case Dismissed with No Settlement—What You Need to Know
The Subway tuna lawsuit ended in July 2023 when the case was dismissed with prejudice—meaning it cannot be refiled. The case was permanently dismissed and cannot be brought back to court. There is no settlement, no claim process, no deadline to file, and no payouts for consumers. The plaintiff voluntarily withdrew the lawsuit citing health reasons related to pregnancy, and the court denied Subway’s request for over $600,000 in sanctions against her attorneys.
What the Subway Tuna Lawsuit Alleged
The lawsuit began in January 2021 when California residents Karen Dhanowa and Nilima Amin filed a class-action case against Subway Restaurants Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuit claimed that Subway’s tuna sandwiches and wraps contained absolutely no tuna, alleging the chain committed fraud, intentional misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment.
The original complaint was bold. Plaintiffs claimed the products entirely lacked any trace of tuna as a component, let alone the main or predominant ingredient. According to the lawsuit, independent lab testing showed that Subway’s tuna products were “a mixture of various concoctions” designed to look like tuna but containing no actual tuna fish.
Then the case shifted. The plaintiffs filed multiple amended complaints, changing their allegations each time. By June 2021, the plaintiffs targeted Subway’s marketing claims that its tuna was 100 percent sustainably-caught skipjack and yellowfin tuna. In a third version filed in November 2021, Amin alleged the tuna products partially or wholly lacked tuna and contained other fish species, animal products, or miscellaneous products aside from tuna.
Who Were the Key Players?
Plaintiffs: Karen Dhanowa and Nilima Amin, both California residents who claimed they purchased Subway tuna products believing they contained real tuna. Amin claimed she ordered Subway tuna more than 100 times between 2013 and 2019. However, Judge Jon Tigar dismissed Dhanowa’s claims entirely because she had never actually purchased a Subway tuna sandwich.
Defendant: Subway Restaurants Inc., the global sandwich chain with nearly 37,000 locations worldwide. The company maintained throughout the litigation that it serves “100% real, wild-caught tuna” from its supplier, Rema Foods.
Presiding Judge: U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar, who oversaw the case from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in Oakland.
The Legal Claims and Court Rulings
The lawsuit made several legal claims under California consumer protection law, including false advertising, breach of warranty, fraud, and violations of the state’s Unfair Competition Law. The plaintiffs sought $5 million in damages and wanted to represent a class of California consumers who purchased Subway tuna products since 2017.
But the case faced serious procedural problems from the start. Judge Tigar found the lawsuit needed to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), which requires fraud claims to identify the specific nature of the fraud with particularity. The plaintiffs failed this test repeatedly.
In October 2021, Judge Tigar dismissed the initial complaint, noting that plaintiffs needed to describe the specific statements they saw and relied upon, when they saw the statements, and where the statements appeared. He gave them permission to refile with more specific allegations.
The case continued through multiple versions. In July 2022, Judge Tigar allowed a narrowed version to proceed, but only after rejecting many of the plaintiffs’ claims. He specifically noted that consumers could reasonably expect ingredients like mayonnaise mixed with tuna, not just pure tuna fish.
Why the Case Was Dismissed
In April 2023, Nilima Amin filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the lawsuit. She cited her pregnancy and health complications as the reason she could no longer serve as the class representative. Amin said her pregnancy had triggered severe morning sickness and caused other debilitating conditions that left her unable to proceed with the obligations as plaintiff.
Initially, Amin wanted to dismiss without prejudice, which would have allowed her to refile the case later. But after Subway objected and demanded sanctions, she agreed to dismiss with prejudice—a permanent dismissal. On July 27, 2023, Judge Tigar signed off on the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice, meaning it cannot be refiled.
The case officially ended without any finding that Subway’s tuna was fake or fraudulent. No court ever ruled on the merits of the allegations. The dismissal was voluntary, not a judgment on the evidence.
Subway’s Request for Sanctions—And Why It Failed
Subway wasn’t satisfied with just dismissing the case. The company filed a motion seeking $617,955 in sanctions against Amin’s attorneys, calling the lawsuit “frivolous litigation.” Subway’s lawyers argued that plaintiff’s counsel were given every opportunity to withdraw their meritless claims but refused, forcing Subway to spend valuable resources litigating claims that had no basis in law or fact.
On August 4, 2023, Judge Tigar issued his final ruling on sanctions. He granted Amin’s voluntary motion to dismiss but denied Subway’s request for six-figure sanctions against her counsel. While the judge acknowledged that Amin’s attorneys missed discovery deadlines and provided improper legal documents, he concluded that Subway’s sanctions motion sought punishment for bringing meritless claims rather than for litigation misconduct.
The court’s reasoning was clear: bad lawyering and weak claims aren’t the same as sanctionable conduct. Judge Tigar noted in the sanctions hearing that if he imposed attorney’s fees in every case where the legal work wasn’t up to standard, his calendar would be full of sanctions hearings.
Current Status as of January 2026
As of January 2026, the Subway tuna lawsuit remains permanently dismissed. There is no settlement. There are no claims being processed. There is no deadline to file because there is nothing to file for. The case is closed and cannot be reopened.
Subway continues to maintain that it serves 100% wild-caught tuna. The company stated that the lawsuit and the plaintiff’s meritless claims resulted in the spread of harmful misinformation and caused damage to Subway franchisees and the brand. The chain even maintains a dedicated website, SubwayTunaFacts.com, where it answers questions about its tuna sourcing and quality control.
The lawsuit had real consequences for Subway’s reputation. As of 2025, Subway’s website still had an entire section devoted to answering questions about its tuna salad, proving the company was still fighting the rumors and wanted to reassure customers. Social media videos and consumer skepticism persisted years after the case ended, showing how legal allegations can damage a brand even when they never result in a court finding of wrongdoing.
What You Must Know About the Subway Tuna Case
The DNA Testing Evidence Never Held Up in Court
The plaintiffs’ strongest evidence was DNA testing allegedly performed at UCLA’s Barber Lab. According to the complaint, 19 out of 20 samples from Southern California Subway locations showed no detectable tuna DNA, while all 20 samples allegedly contained chicken DNA, with some showing pork and cattle DNA as well. This evidence sounds damning—but it never survived legal scrutiny.
Subway’s lawyer explained that Subway’s fish is processed at a very high temperature, which denatures the DNA. When tuna is cooked and processed with heat, the DNA structure breaks down, making it extremely difficult or impossible to identify through standard DNA testing. This is true of all commercially processed tuna, including canned tuna sold in grocery stores. The testing methodology was fundamentally flawed because it couldn’t account for how cooking affects DNA detectability.
The New York Times conducted its own investigation in 2021, but their lab results were inconclusive. The lab reported either that the tuna was so heavily processed that they couldn’t identify it, or that there was no tuna present—they couldn’t say which. This ambiguity undermined rather than supported the plaintiffs’ case.
Why Class Actions Require Specific Fraud Allegations
Many consumers assume that if a company’s product seems misleading, a lawsuit will succeed. But fraud cases require strict pleading standards under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). You can’t just say “Subway lied about its tuna.” You must identify exactly what statement Subway made, where you saw it, when you saw it, and how you relied on that specific statement when making your purchase.
The plaintiffs failed this requirement across three different complaint versions. They couldn’t point to specific advertisements, menu boards, packaging labels, or marketing materials that made the allegedly false claims. Without this specificity, Subway couldn’t properly defend itself because it didn’t know which statements were being challenged.
This is a critical lesson for consumer class actions. General allegations of deception aren’t enough. You need concrete evidence of specific false statements that caused you harm.
The Shifting Legal Theories Weakened the Case
The lawsuit changed its core allegations three times. First, it claimed there was zero tuna in Subway products. Then it shifted to claims about sustainability and tuna species. Finally, it alleged the tuna wasn’t “100% tuna” because it contained other ingredients or wasn’t the advertised skipjack and yellowfin species.
These shifting theories damaged the plaintiffs’ credibility. Subway faulted Amin’s ever-changing theories to debunk its claim that its tuna products were 100% tuna. When your legal theory keeps changing, it suggests you don’t have a solid foundation for your claims. Courts view this unfavorably because it appears the plaintiffs are searching for any argument that might stick rather than pursuing a genuine case with consistent evidence.
What This Means for Future Consumer Lawsuits
The Subway tuna case offers important lessons for anyone considering consumer fraud litigation. First, DNA testing of heavily processed food products has serious limitations and may not hold up as evidence. Second, fraud claims require specific, detailed allegations about what statements the company made and how you relied on them. Third, voluntarily dismissing a case with prejudice ends it permanently—there’s no coming back later with better evidence.
The case also highlights the reputational damage lawsuits can cause even when they don’t succeed. Subway spent years defending its tuna in court filings, press releases, and public relations campaigns. The chain continues to address these allegations on its website years after the case ended, showing that consumer perception can suffer regardless of legal outcomes.
For consumers wondering about food labeling and advertising standards, federal law requires that tuna products be made from fish in the Thunnini tribe, which includes skipjack and yellowfin species. The FDA regulates seafood labeling, and the Seafood Import Monitoring Program requires complete traceability of tuna from catch to processing. Companies that violate these standards face regulatory action, not just civil lawsuits.
What to Do Next If You Have Questions About the Case
There Is No Settlement to File Claims Against
The most important thing to understand is that this lawsuit ended with no settlement. You cannot file a claim. There is no settlement administrator, no claim form, no deadline, and no potential payout. The case was dismissed before reaching any settlement negotiations or trial.
If you see websites or notices suggesting you can join the Subway tuna settlement or file a claim, they are either outdated (referring to when the lawsuit was still active) or potentially fraudulent. As of January 2026, there is no active legal action against Subway regarding its tuna products.
How to Access Official Court Records
If you want to review the actual court filings and rulings in this case, you can access them through PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records) at pacer.gov. The case is Amin v. Subway Restaurants Inc. et al., U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. 4:21-cv-00498-DMR.
You can also review Subway’s official position on its tuna at SubwayTunaFacts.com, where the company provides information about its sourcing, testing, and quality control processes. While this is Subway’s own website and reflects the company’s perspective, it includes specific information about regulatory compliance and third-party testing.
When You Might Need Legal Advice
If you believe you have evidence of false advertising or consumer fraud by any company—not just Subway—consult a qualified consumer protection attorney before taking action. Class-action lawsuits have strict procedural requirements, tight deadlines, and high evidentiary standards. An experienced attorney can evaluate whether you have a viable claim and what evidence you would need to support it.
Consumer fraud cases often require expert testimony, scientific testing, detailed documentation of purchases, and proof of how you relied on specific company statements. Don’t assume that suspicion or general concern about a product is enough to bring a successful lawsuit. The Subway tuna case demonstrates how challenging these cases can be even when they generate significant media attention.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Subway tuna lawsuit about?
The Subway tuna lawsuit was a class-action case filed in January 2021 by California residents who claimed Subway’s tuna products didn’t contain real tuna. The plaintiffs alleged fraud and false advertising, but the case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice in July 2023 before any court ruling on the merits. There was no settlement and no finding that Subway’s tuna was fake.
Am I eligible to file a claim in the Subway tuna settlement?
No. There is no Subway tuna settlement. The lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice in July 2023, meaning it ended permanently with no settlement, no claim process, and no payouts to consumers. The case cannot be refiled, and there is nothing to join or file a claim for as of January 2026.
What is the deadline to submit a claim?
There is no deadline because there is no claim process. The Subway tuna lawsuit ended without a settlement in July 2023. Any information suggesting you can file a claim or that there’s a deadline is either outdated or incorrect. The case is permanently closed.
How much can I receive from the Subway tuna settlement?
Nothing. The Subway tuna case ended with no settlement and no monetary awards to consumers. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case, and it was closed with prejudice, meaning it cannot be refiled. There are no settlement payments, claims processing, or distributions of any kind related to this lawsuit.
How do I file a claim in the Subway tuna lawsuit?
You cannot file a claim because the lawsuit was dismissed in July 2023 without a settlement. The case is permanently closed. If you believe you have a separate legal claim against Subway or any other company for consumer fraud, you would need to consult a qualified attorney to evaluate whether you have grounds for a new lawsuit—but you cannot join or participate in the dismissed tuna case.
Has the Subway tuna lawsuit been settled?
No. The lawsuit was not settled—it was dismissed. In April 2023, plaintiff Nilima Amin filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the case citing pregnancy-related health issues. On July 27, 2023, the court granted her motion to dismiss with prejudice, permanently ending the case. Subway’s tuna was never found to be fake or fraudulent by any court, and no settlement was reached.
What documentation do I need to prove my claim?
This question doesn’t apply because there is no active claim process. The Subway tuna lawsuit ended in July 2023 without a settlement. However, if you’re considering future consumer fraud litigation, you would typically need receipts showing purchases, evidence of the allegedly false statements you relied on, documentation of when and where you saw those statements, and proof that you suffered harm as a result.
Last Updated: January 17, 2026
Disclaimer: This article provides legal information only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified attorney for guidance on your specific situation.
Take Action: While the Subway tuna lawsuit is permanently closed with no settlement or claims process, staying informed about consumer protection rights helps you make educated decisions. If you have concerns about food labeling or false advertising, consult qualified legal counsel to understand your options.
Stay informed, stay protected. — AllAboutLawyer.com
About the Author
Sarah Klein, JD, is a licensed attorney and legal content strategist with over 12 years of experience across civil, criminal, family, and regulatory law. At All About Lawyer, she covers a wide range of legal topics — from high-profile lawsuits and courtroom stories to state traffic laws and everyday legal questions — all with a focus on accuracy, clarity, and public understanding.
Her writing blends real legal insight with plain-English explanations, helping readers stay informed and legally aware.
Read more about Sarah