In reply to Tim Simplot.

Agreed. The lack any specifics on this case make me suspicious that Edgar is right. This case may not be "Subway doesn't sell tuna." and maybe instead "What Subway sells as tuna, really is tuna, but doesn't fit this oddly specific definition of what tuna "should" be.

Edgar replies: Joel, I offered the definitional problem as one possible basis for the plaintiff's claim. If the tuna really isn't fish as the lawyers seem to claim, then the definition could be the actual basis of their claim. I personally don't believe there is no fish in their "concoction." In a CBS interview that I saw online, the lawyers said their tests could not identify what the tuna actual was. This is why, at least at the moment, I am leaning toward thinking that the tests the lawyers did were not accurate. I also think Subway may be withholding some information about the tuna at the moment that will eventually come out.