Business

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Subway’s “No Tuna” in Their Tuna Sandwiches Saga Nears an End

It has been going on for nearly two-and-half years already. Two California consumers claimed there was no tuna in Subway’s tuna sandwiches.

The case generated headlines worldwide.

Subway Tuna Headlines

We’ve written six stories about the case. First the consumer claimed there was no tuna in their subs, then her lawyers said it wasn’t 100-percent tuna, and on and on. The lawyers filed and withdrew complaint after complaint, changing their theory of the case.

The company got a huge black eye because of these cases, and probably suffered significant reputational damage and lost sales.

Now, on April 20, 2023, the consumer sought to voluntarily dismiss the case.

But guess what? Subway said not so fast. In essence, because the consumer and her lawyers put the company through the wringer even after having been provided with documentation pinpointing the place where the tuna is captured to how it’s packaged, Subway’s lawyers are seeking sanctions against the consumer’s lawyers.

They say the suit should have been dropped long ago, and way before the company had to spend over $600,000 in legal fees to defend itself. The six consumer lawyers filed various pleadings, they say, to extend the lawsuit “motivated by the prospect that Subway might simply pay a windfall settlement.”

For their part, the consumer’s lawyers countered that the consumer is withdrawing her complaint because of health issues. They went on to say:

Plaintiff filed her complaints with a good faith, non-frivolous basis based on testing and evidence that there was something amiss with respect to the meat product defendants were selling as ‘tuna.’

MrConsumer has always thought the case was a little fishy because of the questionable test results the consumer’s lawyers claimed to have. Now, finally, the case should come to a conclusion after an August hearing.

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Get a Free 55-inch HDTV*

Last week, a company called Free Telly came out with a once-in-a-lifetime offer: They are going to give away half a million 55-inch HDTVs for free in 2023!

Say what?

Free Telly

So what’s the catch? This novel TV has two screens: the main viewing screen, and then a second full-width but smaller screen below that will stream information like news and weather, but more importantly, interactive advertisements from which viewers can order merchandise or meals. And the content may be related to what is being viewed on the main screen. They also have the ability to collect a ton of user data via their privacy policy. And the TVs have a microphone and camera supposedly for voice commands and video calling.

Now a company like this is not going to willy-nilly send out 55-inch televisions with no strings attached. In fact, they have a detailed terms and conditions statement with a couple of interesting qualifications.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Free Telly terms

Many people have bigger or better TVs as their primary television and are not going to want to put this one in its place.

If you don’t play by the rules, you have to return the TV or you will be charged for it via the credit card you are required to provide.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Free Telly charge

Interestingly, the terms and conditions statement changed on its launch day last week. The previous version for beta testers spelled out the penalty for not returning the TV.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Free Telly penalty

Here are some more details about their plans.

Will this be a big financial success or go the way of MoviePass?

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

CPSC Slow to Issue Product Safety Warnings

We expect state and federal agencies charged with protecting public safety to warn and protect us from dangerous products and defects in a timely way.

That is particularly the role of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). In the story below, grieving parents of a baby who died by suffocation in a Fisher-Price Rock ‘n Play sleeper in 2017 say the agency knew about previous deaths and injuries but the product was still on the market.

The baby sleeper in this case was eventually recalled by Fisher-Price but only after information about its safety issues and reported deaths was obtained by Consumer Reports and made public. Here is some history.

*MOUSE PRINT:

The federal law being called into question here, section 6(b) of the Consumer Product Safety Act, has been controversial for years. It basically requires the CPSC to give manufacturers at least 15 days advance warning before it goes public with news of a safety defect from which the public could learn the name of the manufacturer and product involved. The manufacturer can then respond to the CPSC with its position, and object to the release of the information.

Since the CPSC is surprisingly not empowered to order a product recall without going into court to sue for one, the agency and manufacturer are often at loggerheads for years over the issue. This is why when you hear about a recall, it is typically the manufacturer “voluntarily” doing it and not the CPSC. Additionally, some say if manufacturers know that the product defect and injury reports they file with the CPSC are not going to be easily made public that incentivizes them to continue to make such important disclosures.

While the TV report above asserts that section 6(b) is a gag order being placed on the CPSC, a former assistant general counsel at the agency says it is not. He asserts the real problem at the agency is that it fails to understand and use its existing authority.

No matter, in the current Congress, the Sunshine in Product Safety Act was filed to abolish section 6(b), but it has gone to committee and not likely to pass.

Whether section 6(b) is preventing the CPSC from naming names and alerting the public early to safety hazards, or they are not effectively using their own rules and tools, the result is the same. We deserve better protection.