}}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>
Revision as of 04:52, 13 March 2026
🧽🫧Article Status Notice: This Article needs to be cleaned up
This article contains sources and content, but is lacking proper format and needs more development to meet the wiki's Content Guidelines and provide a high quality and consistent experience for readers.
Learn more ▼
Issues may include:
The article is not following the correct outline for its subject (i.e. incident, company, product)
This article contains references that do not utilize the <ref></ref> tags or Cite web template.
The article has "WIP" mentioned next to content
A quote longer than two sentences does not use the Quote template.
How you can help:
Copy and paste the layout from the aforementioned preload templates (depending on the article's topic)
Take URLs, convert them for the Cite web template, and insert them into the correct sentence where the source can verify a claim.
Remove personal notes left by editors either with <!-- [text here] --> in source editor or when the article is close to being fully cleaned up.
Flesh out the article with relevant information
This notice will be removed once the article is sufficiently developed. Once you believe the article is ready to have its notice removed, please visit the Moderator's noticeboard, or the Discord (join here) and post to the #appeals channel, or mention its status on the article's talk page.
⚠️Article status notice: This article has been marked as incomplete
This article needs additional work for its sourcing and verifiability to meet the wiki's Content Guidelines and be in line with our Mission Statement for comprehensive coverage of consumer protection issues. In particular:
Needs more diverse references (topclassaction appears a lot)
This notice will be removed once the issue/s highlighted above have been addressed and sufficient documentation has been added to establish the systemic nature of these issues. Once you believe the article is ready to have its notice removed, please visit the Moderator's noticeboard, or the discord and post to the #appeals channel.
Learn more ▼
This Article Requires Additional Verification
This article has been flagged due to verification concerns. While the topic might have merit, the claims presented lack citations that live up to our standards, or rely on sources that are questionable or unverifiable by our standards. Articles must meet the Moderator Guidelines and Mission statement; factual accuracy and systemic relevance are required for inclusion here!
Why This Article Is In Question
Articles in this wiki are required to:
Provide verifiable & credible evidence to substantiate claims.
Avoid relying on anecdotal, unsourced, or suspicious citations that lack legitimacy.
Make sure that all claims are backed by reliable documentation or reporting from reputable sources.
Examples of issues that trigger this notice:
A topic that heavily relies on forum posts, personal blogs, or other unverifiable sources.
Unsupported claims with no evidence or citations to back them up.
Citations to disreputable sources, like non-expert blogs or sites known for spreading misinformation.
How You Can Improve This Article
To address verification concerns:
Replace or supplement weak citations with credible, verifiable sources.
Make sure that claims are backed by reputable reporting or independent documentation.
Provide additional evidence to demonstrate systemic relevance and factual accuracy. For example:
Avoid: Claims based entirely on personal anecdotes or hearsay without supporting documentation.
Include: Corporate policies, internal communications, receipts, repair logs, verifiable video evidence, or credible investigative reports.
If you believe this notice has been placed in error, or once the article has been updated to address these concerns, please visit the Moderator's noticeboard, or the #appeals channel on our Discord server: Join here.
Founded in 1965, Subway IP LLC is an American food restaurant specializing in submarine sandwiches with 20,127 locations in the United States.
Consumer-impact summary
Overview of concerns that arise from the conduct towards users of the product (if applicable):
User Freedom
User Privacy
Business Model
Market Control
Add your text below this box. Once this section is complete, delete this box by clicking on it and pressing backspace.
Incidents
This is a list of all consumer-protection incidents this company is involved in. Any incidents not mentioned here can be found in the Subway category.
Hepatitis found in Subway
Main article: link to the main CR Wiki articleIn 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.[1] 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.[2]Subway's Footlong Lawsuit for plantiff showcasing a footlong being 10 inchesSubway's Footlong Lawsuit product
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.[3]
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.[4][5]
Product not completely tuna
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.[6] 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".[7][8][9]
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.[8] 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.[10]
A spokesperson from subway responded to the dismissal, citing;
“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"
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.[11][12] 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.[13]
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.[14] On September 8, the plaintiffs dropped their claims against T-mobile, however the motive remains unknown.[15][16] 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.[17] 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.[18]
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;[19][20]
Subway is found liable for sending messages via Automatic telephone dialing system
T-Mobile was found to have an relationship with Subway
Declared that Subway didn't send the messages, instead it was handled by T-mobile
As of March 2026, the case is still ongoing.
Subway Steak & Cheese Advertisement
In 2021, Ryan Turizo filed a lawsuit against Subway for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and Florida Telephone Solicitation Act by sending text messages to customers without given consent via an computer automotive system. [21][22]The case is still ongoing as of March.
Giving less meat than advertised to customers
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.[23][24] As of March 2026, the lawsuit is still ongoing.
Subway actual Steak & Cheese Received
Coupon ineligibility
This section is incomplete. This notice can be deleted once all the placeholder text has been replaced.
