comparemela.com


Agriculture
your username
3 hours ago
Following an agreement between the two parties, Karen Dhanowa and Nilima Amin, plaintiffs in a California Northern District lawsuit against Subway who previously claimed that the restaurant’s tuna is fake filed an amended complaint on Monday altering their allegations to claims that the tuna is not “100% tuna” from sustainable fisheries as Subway claimed.
In the initial complaint filed on January 21 against Subway Restaurants Inc., Franchise World Headquarters LLC, and Subway Franchise Advertising Trust Fund LTD, the plaintiffs claimed that Subway’s products represented as tuna are falsely advertised and labeled. The complaint said “in reality, the Products do not contain tuna nor have any ingredient that constitutes Tuna.” It alleged that Subway’s tuna is falsely advertised because consumers will pay more if they believe it is tuna.

Related Keywords

California ,United States ,Karen Dhanowa ,Nilima Amin ,Mcnicholas ,Dogra Law Group ,Subway Restaurants Inc ,Lanier Law Firm ,Baker Mckenzie ,Subway Franchise Advertising Trust Fund ,Franchise World Headquarters ,California Northern District ,கலிஃபோர்னியா ,ஒன்றுபட்டது மாநிலங்களில் ,நீலிம அமின் ,மிக்னிச்சோழச் ,டோக்ரா சட்டம் குழு ,சுரங்கப்பாதை உணவகங்கள் இன்க் ,லானியர் சட்டம் நிறுவனம் ,ரொட்டி சுடுபவர் மகெந்ஸீ ,உரிமையை உலகம் தலைமையகம் ,கலிஃபோர்னியா வடக்கு மாவட்டம் ,

© 2024 Vimarsana

comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.