Subway - Revision history

Mr Pollo at 20:28, 17 March 2026

2026-03-17T20:28:51Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:28, 17 March 2026
Line 79:		Line 79:

	[[Category:{{PAGENAME}}]]		[[Category:{{PAGENAME}}]]
	~~[[Category:Companies]]~~

Sojourna at 02:57, 15 March 2026

2026-03-15T02:57:32Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:57, 15 March 2026
Line 19:		Line 19:
	This resulted in several lawsuits from affected individuals , with one containing 29 affected individuals reaching a $1.06 million settlement in 2000.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web \|date=3 July 2001 \|title=Subway settles hepatitis suit for $10 million \|url=https://www.deseret.com/2001/7/3/19594580/subway-settles-hepatitis-suit-for-10-million/ \|url-status=live \|access-date=12 March 2026 \|website=Dessert News}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web \|date=15 August 2000 \|title=USA: Seattle Law Firm Obtains $1.06 Million Settlement On Behalf of Hepatitis Outbreak Victims \|url=https://www.just-food.com/news/usa-seattle-law-firm-obtains-1-06-million-settlement-on-behalf-of-hepatitis-outbreak-victims/?cf-view \|url-status=live \|access-date=12 March 2026 \|website=Just Food}}</ref> Another lawsuit was filed in February 2000 by families members after Christian Decker (who was 6 at the time) was hit with Hepatitis-A after him and his family went to Subway in September 1999. Christian Decker was hospitalized at Children's Hospital & Regional Medical Center, where he had to obtain an liver and a undisclosed transplant, resulting in him being on immuno-suppressants drugs for the rest of his life. In a per-trial hearing, subway was denied exemption from the case, however the details surrounding the attempt remained unknown. Around June 2001, a $10 million settlement was reached that required the Doctor Association pay $6 million, Subway Northwest $2 million, and Thomas Sandstedt and Lisa Nguyen $2 million.<ref name=":1" /><ref name=":2">{{Cite web \|last=Bartley \|first=Nancy \|date=3 July 2001 \|title=Subway to pay $10 million to settle boy's hepatitis suit \|url=https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/20010703/subway03m0/subway-to-pay-10-million-to-settle-boys-hepatitis-suit \|url-status=live \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260313045628/https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/20010703/subway03m0/subway-to-pay-10-million-to-settle-boys-hepatitis-suit \|archive-date=13 March 2026 \|access-date=12 March 2026 \|website=The Seattle Times}}</ref>		This resulted in several lawsuits from affected individuals , with one containing 29 affected individuals reaching a $1.06 million settlement in 2000.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web \|date=3 July 2001 \|title=Subway settles hepatitis suit for $10 million \|url=https://www.deseret.com/2001/7/3/19594580/subway-settles-hepatitis-suit-for-10-million/ \|url-status=live \|access-date=12 March 2026 \|website=Dessert News}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web \|date=15 August 2000 \|title=USA: Seattle Law Firm Obtains $1.06 Million Settlement On Behalf of Hepatitis Outbreak Victims \|url=https://www.just-food.com/news/usa-seattle-law-firm-obtains-1-06-million-settlement-on-behalf-of-hepatitis-outbreak-victims/?cf-view \|url-status=live \|access-date=12 March 2026 \|website=Just Food}}</ref> Another lawsuit was filed in February 2000 by families members after Christian Decker (who was 6 at the time) was hit with Hepatitis-A after him and his family went to Subway in September 1999. Christian Decker was hospitalized at Children's Hospital & Regional Medical Center, where he had to obtain an liver and a undisclosed transplant, resulting in him being on immuno-suppressants drugs for the rest of his life. In a per-trial hearing, subway was denied exemption from the case, however the details surrounding the attempt remained unknown. Around June 2001, a $10 million settlement was reached that required the Doctor Association pay $6 million, Subway Northwest $2 million, and Thomas Sandstedt and Lisa Nguyen $2 million.<ref name=":1" /><ref name=":2">{{Cite web \|last=Bartley \|first=Nancy \|date=3 July 2001 \|title=Subway to pay $10 million to settle boy's hepatitis suit \|url=https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/20010703/subway03m0/subway-to-pay-10-million-to-settle-boys-hepatitis-suit \|url-status=live \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260313045628/https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/20010703/subway03m0/subway-to-pay-10-million-to-settle-boys-hepatitis-suit \|archive-date=13 March 2026 \|access-date=12 March 2026 \|website=The Seattle Times}}</ref>

	Mark Honeywell, attorney for subway, responded to the aftermath of the situation by saying "it's hard to find a more deserving plaintiff". He states that the company should've been ~~excempt~~ from the suit because the company had no control over the employees and have "only a contract for making inspections".<ref name=":2" />		Mark Honeywell, attorney for subway, responded to the aftermath of the situation by saying "it's hard to find a more deserving plaintiff". He states that the company should've been exempt from the suit because the company had no control over the employees and have "only a contract for making inspections".<ref name=":2" />
	~~[[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===
			[[File:Subway plaintiff's Footlong Sub.png\|alt=Subway's Footlong Lawsuit for plaintiff showcasing a Footlong being 10 inches.\|thumb\|Subway's Footlong Lawsuit product]]
	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 plaintiffs 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 plaintiffs 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 72:		Line 72:

	==See also==		==See also==

	*[[McDonald's]]		*[[McDonald's]]
	*[[Arby's]]		*[[Arby's]]
Line 80:		Line 79:

	[[Category:{{PAGENAME}}]]		[[Category:{{PAGENAME}}]]
			[[Category:Companies]]

SquidthePlummer: missed some info about hepatitis incident and added more info, though for some reason very limited and not much details

2026-03-13T05:48:38Z

missed some info about hepatitis incident and added more info, though for some reason very limited and not much details

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:48, 13 March 2026
Line 15:		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===
	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=https://www.deseret.com/2001/7/3/19594580/subway-settles-hepatitis-suit-for-10-million/ \|url-status=live \|access-date=12 March 2026 \|website=Dessert News}}</ref>		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, with some cases resulting in individuals being hospitalized, however most recovered from their illness.<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 several lawsuits from affected individuals , with one containing 29 affected individuals reaching a $1.06 million settlement in 2000.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web \|date=3 July 2001 \|title=Subway settles hepatitis suit for $10 million \|url=https://www.deseret.com/2001/7/3/19594580/subway-settles-hepatitis-suit-for-10-million/ \|url-status=live \|access-date=12 March 2026 \|website=Dessert News}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web \|date=15 August 2000 \|title=USA: Seattle Law Firm Obtains $1.06 Million Settlement On Behalf of Hepatitis Outbreak Victims \|url=https://www.just-food.com/news/usa-seattle-law-firm-obtains-1-06-million-settlement-on-behalf-of-hepatitis-outbreak-victims/?cf-view \|url-status=live \|access-date=12 March 2026 \|website=Just Food}}</ref> Another lawsuit was filed in February 2000 by families members after Christian Decker (who was 6 at the time) was hit with Hepatitis-A after him and his family went to Subway in September 1999. Christian Decker was hospitalized at Children's Hospital & Regional Medical Center, where he had to obtain an liver and a undisclosed transplant, resulting in him being on immuno-suppressants drugs for the rest of his life. In a per-trial hearing, subway was denied exemption from the case, however the details surrounding the attempt remained unknown. Around June 2001, a $10 million settlement was reached that required the Doctor Association pay $6 million, Subway Northwest $2 million, and Thomas Sandstedt and Lisa Nguyen $2 million.<ref name=":1" /><ref name=":2">{{Cite web \|last=Bartley \|first=Nancy \|date=3 July 2001 \|title=Subway to pay $10 million to settle boy's hepatitis suit \|url=https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/20010703/subway03m0/subway-to-pay-10-million-to-settle-boys-hepatitis-suit \|url-status=live \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260313045628/https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/20010703/subway03m0/subway-to-pay-10-million-to-settle-boys-hepatitis-suit \|archive-date=13 March 2026 \|access-date=12 March 2026 \|website=The Seattle Times}}</ref>

			Mark Honeywell, attorney for subway, responded to the aftermath of the situation by saying "it's hard to find a more deserving plaintiff". He states that the company should've been excempt from the suit because the company had no control over the employees and have "only a contract for making inspections".<ref name=":2" />
	[[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]]

SquidthePlummer: fixes

2026-03-13T04:57:48Z

fixes

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:57, 13 March 2026
Line 15:		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===
	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>		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=https://www.deseret.com/2001/7/3/19594580/subway-settles-hepatitis-suit-for-10-million/ \|url-status=live \|access-date=12 March 2026 \|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]]

Line 21:		Line 21:
	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 plaintiffs 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 plaintiffs 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>

	The lawsuit reached a settlement in 2015, compensating customers who ordered between January 1, 2003 through October 2 2015 $500, and gave the plaintiffs $520,000 for attorney fees.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Luperon \|first=Alberto \|date=19 ~~Feburary~~ 2026 \|title=Subway Settles Lawsuit Claiming 'Footlongs' Were Too Short \|url=https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/subway-settles-lawsuit-claiming-footlongs-were-too-short/ \|url-status=live \|access-date=12 March 2026 \|website=Law&Crime}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web \|last=Bucher \|first=Anne \|date=19 October 2015 \|title=Subway Footlong Sandwich Class Action Settlement \|url=https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/closed-settlements/subway-footlong-sandwich-class-action-settlement/ \|url-status=live \|access-date=12 March 2026 \|website=Top Class Action}}</ref>		The lawsuit reached a settlement in 2015, compensating customers who ordered between January 1, 2003 through October 2 2015 $500, and gave the plaintiffs $520,000 for attorney fees.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Luperon \|first=Alberto \|date=19 February 2026 \|title=Subway Settles Lawsuit Claiming 'Footlongs' Were Too Short \|url=https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/subway-settles-lawsuit-claiming-footlongs-were-too-short/ \|url-status=live \|access-date=12 March 2026 \|website=Law&Crime}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web \|last=Bucher \|first=Anne \|date=19 October 2015 \|title=Subway Footlong Sandwich Class Action Settlement \|url=https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/closed-settlements/subway-footlong-sandwich-class-action-settlement/ \|url-status=live \|access-date=12 March 2026 \|website=Top Class Action}}</ref>

	===Product not completely tuna<!-- someone please check over this, this may be really innacurate as varying infomration gave varying stories and conteract one another. -->===		===Product not completely tuna<!-- someone please check over this, this may be really innacurate as varying infomration gave varying stories and conteract one another. -->===

SquidthePlummer: this took me 4 hours . . . . . NEXTTT

2026-03-13T04:55:39Z

this took me 4 hours . . . . . NEXTTT

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:55, 13 March 2026
Line 15:		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}}~~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 ]]		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]]

	===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 plaintiffs 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>

	The lawsuit reached a settlement in 2015, compensating customers who ordered between January 1, 2003 through October 2 2015 $500, and gave the plaintiffs $520,000 for attorney fees.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Luperon \|first=Alberto \|date=19 Feburary 2026 \|title=Subway Settles Lawsuit Claiming 'Footlongs' Were Too Short \|url=https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/subway-settles-lawsuit-claiming-footlongs-were-too-short/ \|url-status=live \|access-date=12 March 2026 \|website=Law&Crime}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web \|last=Bucher \|first=Anne \|date=19 October 2015 \|title=Subway Footlong Sandwich Class Action Settlement \|url=https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/closed-settlements/subway-footlong-sandwich-class-action-settlement/ \|url-status=live \|access-date=12 March 2026 \|website=Top Class Action}}</ref>		The lawsuit reached a settlement in 2015, compensating customers who ordered between January 1, 2003 through October 2 2015 $500, and gave the plaintiffs $520,000 for attorney fees.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Luperon \|first=Alberto \|date=19 Feburary 2026 \|title=Subway Settles Lawsuit Claiming 'Footlongs' Were Too Short \|url=https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/subway-settles-lawsuit-claiming-footlongs-were-too-short/ \|url-status=live \|access-date=12 March 2026 \|website=Law&Crime}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web \|last=Bucher \|first=Anne \|date=19 October 2015 \|title=Subway Footlong Sandwich Class Action Settlement \|url=https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/closed-settlements/subway-footlong-sandwich-class-action-settlement/ \|url-status=live \|access-date=12 March 2026 \|website=Top Class Action}}</ref>
Line 38:		Line 40:

	===Unsolicited Text History===		===Unsolicited Text History===
	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 June 2016, David Rahmany and Yehuda Rahmany filed a lawsuit against [[T-Mobile US\|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 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 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>

SquidthePlummer: added intro and incidents

2026-03-13T04:52:48Z

added intro and incidents

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:52, 13 March 2026
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.
	~~{{Ph-C-Int}}~~

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

	==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 ]]
	~~Short summary of the incident (could be the same as the summary preceding the article).~~

	===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 ~~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 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 ~~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 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>

SquidthePlummer: incidnet added

2026-03-13T03:51:14Z

incidnet added

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:51, 13 March 2026
Line 19:		Line 19:
	===Hepatitis found in Subway===		===Hepatitis found in Subway===
	{{Main\|link to the main CR Wiki article}}		{{Main\|link to the main CR Wiki article}}
			[[File:Plantiff Footlong .png\|alt=Subway's Footlong Lawsuit for plantiff showcasing a footlong being 10 inches \|thumb\|Subway's Footlong Lawsuit product ]]
	Short summary of the incident (could be the same as the summary preceding the article).		Short summary of the incident (could be the same as the summary preceding the article).

	===Footlong aren't really a foot long===		===Footlong aren't really a foot long===
	~~hah get it!~~		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>

	https://~~topclassactions~~.com/~~lawsuit~~-~~settlements~~/lawsuit-~~news/subway~~-~~footlong~~-~~class~~-~~action~~-~~lawsuit~~/		The lawsuit reached a settlement in 2015, compensating customers who ordered between January 1, 2003 through October 2 2015 $500, and gave the plaintiffs $520,000 for attorney fees.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Luperon \|first=Alberto \|date=19 Feburary 2026 \|title=Subway Settles Lawsuit Claiming 'Footlongs' Were Too Short \|url=https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/subway-settles-lawsuit-claiming-footlongs-were-too-short/ \|url-status=live \|access-date=12 March 2026 \|website=Law&Crime}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web \|last=Bucher \|first=Anne \|date=19 October 2015 \|title=Subway Footlong Sandwich Class Action Settlement \|url=https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/closed-settlements/subway-footlong-sandwich-class-action-settlement/ \|url-status=live \|access-date=12 March 2026 \|website=Top Class Action}}</ref>

	https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/closed-settlements/subway-footlong-sandwich-class-action-settlement/

	===Product not completely tuna<!-- someone please check over this, this may be really innacurate as varying infomration gave varying stories and conteract one another. -->===		===Product not completely tuna<!-- someone please check over this, this may be really innacurate as varying infomration gave varying stories and conteract one another. -->===

SquidthePlummer: added 1 incident, though need to be SEVERELY checked up on

2026-03-13T03:22:24Z

added 1 incident, though need to be SEVERELY checked up on

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:22, 13 March 2026
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

Mr Pollo at 13:34, 11 March 2026

2026-03-11T13:34:44Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:34, 11 March 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Cleanup}}		{{Cleanup}}
	{{Incomplete\|Issue 1=needs sources via [[Template:Cite web]]\|Issue 2=Needs unique paragraphs explaining each incident}}		{{Incomplete\|Issue 1=needs sources via [[Template:Cite web]]\|Issue 2=Needs unique paragraphs explaining each incident\|Issue 3=Needs more diverse references (topclassaction appears a lot)}}
	{{CompanyCargo		{{CompanyCargo
	\|Founded=1965-08-28		\|Founded=1965-08-28

Mr Pollo at 13:31, 11 March 2026

2026-03-11T13:31:19Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:31, 11 March 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Cleanup}}
			{{Incomplete\|Issue 1=needs sources via [[Template:Cite web]]\|Issue 2=Needs unique paragraphs explaining each incident}}
	{{CompanyCargo		{{CompanyCargo
	\|Founded=1965-08-28		\|Founded=1965-08-28
Line 63:		Line 65:
	On October 28, 2024, Anna Tollison filed a lawsuit against Subway for engaging in deceptive marketing practices that advertised the product Steak & Cheese sandwich containing 200% more meat than customers received.<ref>{{Cite web \|date=28 October 2024 \|title=IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK \|url=https://www.classaction.org/media/tollison-v-subway-restaurants-inc-et-al.pdf \|url-status=live \|access-date=10 March 2026 \|website=ClassAction}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web \|date=30 October 2024 \|title=Subway sandwiches are short on meat, lawsuit claims \|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/subway-sandwiches-short-meat-lawsuit-claims-rcna177921 \|url-status=live \|access-date=10 March 2026 \|website=NBC News}}</ref> As of March 2026, the lawsuit is still ongoing.		On October 28, 2024, Anna Tollison filed a lawsuit against Subway for engaging in deceptive marketing practices that advertised the product Steak & Cheese sandwich containing 200% more meat than customers received.<ref>{{Cite web \|date=28 October 2024 \|title=IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK \|url=https://www.classaction.org/media/tollison-v-subway-restaurants-inc-et-al.pdf \|url-status=live \|access-date=10 March 2026 \|website=ClassAction}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web \|date=30 October 2024 \|title=Subway sandwiches are short on meat, lawsuit claims \|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/subway-sandwiches-short-meat-lawsuit-claims-rcna177921 \|url-status=live \|access-date=10 March 2026 \|website=NBC News}}</ref> As of March 2026, the lawsuit is still ongoing.
	[[File:Subway actual Steak & Cheese Received.png\|thumb\|Subway actual Steak & Cheese Received]]		[[File:Subway actual Steak & Cheese Received.png\|thumb\|Subway actual Steak & Cheese Received]]

			===Coupon ineligibility===
			{{Incomplete section}}
			{{Main\|Subway footlong pass ineligibility}}
			Despite Subway corporate requiring all franchisees to accept coupons, many of the independent stores deny the use through the Subway app and in-store.

	==Products==		==Products==

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:55, 13 March 2026
Line 15:		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}}~~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 ]]		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]]

	===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 plaintiffs 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>

	The lawsuit reached a settlement in 2015, compensating customers who ordered between January 1, 2003 through October 2 2015 $500, and gave the plaintiffs $520,000 for attorney fees.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Luperon \|first=Alberto \|date=19 Feburary 2026 \|title=Subway Settles Lawsuit Claiming 'Footlongs' Were Too Short \|url=https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/subway-settles-lawsuit-claiming-footlongs-were-too-short/ \|url-status=live \|access-date=12 March 2026 \|website=Law&Crime}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web \|last=Bucher \|first=Anne \|date=19 October 2015 \|title=Subway Footlong Sandwich Class Action Settlement \|url=https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/closed-settlements/subway-footlong-sandwich-class-action-settlement/ \|url-status=live \|access-date=12 March 2026 \|website=Top Class Action}}</ref>		The lawsuit reached a settlement in 2015, compensating customers who ordered between January 1, 2003 through October 2 2015 $500, and gave the plaintiffs $520,000 for attorney fees.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Luperon \|first=Alberto \|date=19 Feburary 2026 \|title=Subway Settles Lawsuit Claiming 'Footlongs' Were Too Short \|url=https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/subway-settles-lawsuit-claiming-footlongs-were-too-short/ \|url-status=live \|access-date=12 March 2026 \|website=Law&Crime}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web \|last=Bucher \|first=Anne \|date=19 October 2015 \|title=Subway Footlong Sandwich Class Action Settlement \|url=https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/closed-settlements/subway-footlong-sandwich-class-action-settlement/ \|url-status=live \|access-date=12 March 2026 \|website=Top Class Action}}</ref>
Line 38:		Line 40:

	===Unsolicited Text History===		===Unsolicited Text History===
	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 June 2016, David Rahmany and Yehuda Rahmany filed a lawsuit against [[T-Mobile US\|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 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 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>