Corporate Misconduct Accountability Project
Subway Restaurants, Inc. · Class Action
Subway Sued for Allegedly Advertising Sandwiches with 200% More Meat Than Delivered
A class action lawsuit claims Subway deceived New York customers by showing Steak & Cheese sandwiches overflowing with meat in ads while delivering products with drastically smaller portions, violating state consumer protection laws.
HIGH SEVERITY
TL;DR
Subway faces a class action lawsuit alleging it used misleading advertisements showing its Steak & Cheese sandwich overflowing with meat while actual sandwiches contained at least 200% less. Plaintiff Anna Tollison claims she purchased the sandwich based on these deceptive images through Subway’s mobile app, only to receive a product far inferior to what was advertised. The lawsuit seeks damages for all New York customers who bought the sandwich since October 2021, arguing Subway violated state consumer protection laws during a time of high inflation and rising food costs.
If advertisements don’t match reality, consumers deserve accountability and compensation.
200%
Minimum overstatement of meat portions in advertisements
$6.99
Price paid by plaintiff for misleading sandwich
$5M+
Estimated damages threshold for class certification
The Allegations: A Breakdown
Core Allegations
What Subway did to deceive customers · 8 points
| 01 | Subway used photographs in advertisements that made its Steak & Cheese sandwich appear to contain at least 200% more meat than customers actually received. The company displayed these misleading images prominently on its website and mobile application. | high |
| 02 | Subway materially overstated the amount of meat in its Product by at least 200%. Side-by-side comparisons between advertised images and actual sandwiches reveal a stark discrepancy, with advertisements showing abundant layers of steak while delivered products contained minimal meat. | high |
| 03 | The deceptive advertising extended beyond the Steak & Cheese sandwich to other menu items including the Cheesy Garlic Steak. Customer complaints on social media platforms documented sandwiches looking really skimpy compared to advertised pictures. | high |
| 04 | Plaintiff Anna Tollison purchased a Steak & Cheese sandwich on August 23, 2024, through Subway’s mobile application after viewing misleading photographs. She relied on these images when choosing to buy the sandwich, expecting a similar amount of meat as advertised. | high |
| 05 | Subway’s advertisements caused consumers to make purchases they would not have otherwise made. The false promises of large portions drove customers to Subway restaurants and mobile ordering platforms, generating sales through deception. | high |
| 06 | The misleading practices financially damaged consumers who received products materially lower in value than what Subway represented. Customers paid full price for sandwiches containing a fraction of the advertised meat content. | high |
| 07 | Subway’s deceptive advertising occurred during a period of high inflation, rising food costs, and meat price increases. The company exploited financially struggling consumers, especially lower income customers, by promising value it failed to deliver. | high |
| 08 | Numerous customers complained on social media platforms including Reddit that Subway’s advertisements for the Steak & Cheese sandwich were grossly misleading. Posted images documented the significant gap between advertised and actual products received. | medium |
Profit Over Honesty
How Subway gained unfair competitive advantage · 5 points
| 01 | Subway unfairly competed with restaurants that honestly advertise the size of their menu items. The company used exaggerated portion images to steer consumers away from competitors and toward its own establishments. | high |
| 02 | Subway’s false advertising diverted sales that would have gone to competitors who fairly represent their products. Customers chose Subway based on misleading promises of generous portions, giving the company an illegitimate market advantage. | high |
| 03 | The advertisements caused consumers to incur additional expenses beyond the sandwich price. Customers paid for gas to drive to and from Subway locations, as well as delivery fees, pickup fees, and tips based on false expectations. | medium |
| 04 | Subway made its misleading statements and representations willfully, wantonly, and with reckless disregard for the truth. The company knowingly deployed deceptive marketing materials across its website and mobile application. | high |
| 05 | The material misrepresentations remained substantially uniform in content, presentation, and impact upon consumers at large. Every customer viewing the advertisements saw the same misleading images promising portions Subway had no intention of delivering. | high |
Economic Harm to Consumers
The financial impact on customers · 6 points
| 01 | Consumers received products containing at least 200% less meat than advertised, resulting in direct financial loss. Customers paid full price for sandwiches materially inferior to what Subway promised in its marketing materials. | high |
| 02 | The plaintiff and class members suffered damages amounting to at minimum the price Subway charges for double meat portions. The discrepancy between advertised and actual meat content represents quantifiable monetary harm. | high |
| 03 | If customers knew the Steak & Cheese sandwich contained substantially less meat than advertised, they would not have purchased it. Subway induced purchases through deception that consumers would have avoided with accurate information. | high |
| 04 | The total controversy value for New York purchases through Subway’s website and mobile application during the three-year class period exceeds five million dollars. This excludes interest and costs, demonstrating widespread financial impact. | medium |
| 05 | Individual class members lack economic feasibility to pursue separate lawsuits for their losses. The expense and burden of individual litigation makes class action the only practical avenue for consumers to seek redress. | medium |
| 06 | Absent a class action, Subway would likely retain the benefits of its wrongdoing, resulting in a failure of justice. The company would keep profits gained through deceptive practices without compensating harmed consumers. | high |
Legal Violations and Accountability Failures
How Subway broke consumer protection laws · 6 points
| 01 | Subway violated New York General Business Law Section 349, which declares unlawful deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade, or commerce. The company’s misleading advertisements constitute recurring violations of this consumer protection statute. | high |
| 02 | Subway violated New York General Business Law Section 350 by engaging in false advertising. The statute defines false advertising as advertising that is misleading in a material respect, including representations made through photographs. | high |
| 03 | Subway’s improper consumer-oriented conduct was misleading in a material way. The advertisements induced the plaintiff and class members to purchase and pay a premium for products they otherwise would not have bought. | high |
| 04 | The misleading photographs fail to reveal facts material in light of the representations made. Subway’s advertisements omit the truth that actual sandwiches contain drastically less meat than depicted images suggest. | high |
| 05 | All three defendant entities bear responsibility for the deceptive practices. Subway Restaurants Inc., Franchise World Headquarters LLC, and Subway Franchisee Advertising Trust Fund Ltd. all manufactured, marketed, sold, produced, and distributed the misleading Product. | medium |
| 06 | The proposed class includes thousands of members who purchased Steak & Cheese sandwiches from New York Subway locations via website or mobile app between October 28, 2021, and the final disposition of the case. Joinder of all members is impracticable due to the large number of affected consumers. | medium |
Impact on Vulnerable Consumers
Who bears the burden of corporate deception · 4 points
| 01 | Subway’s deceptive practices prove especially concerning during a time when inflation, food prices, and meat prices remain very high. The company exploited economic conditions that leave many consumers financially vulnerable. | high |
| 02 | Lower income consumers, who are struggling financially during the current economic crisis, suffered disproportionate harm. These customers relied on advertised value promises when making purchasing decisions with limited resources. | high |
| 03 | Subway’s promise of large food portions for the purchase price drove consumers to travel to restaurants or pay delivery fees they might not otherwise have incurred. Customers wasted time and money based on false advertising. | medium |
| 04 | Social media posts reveal widespread consumer dissatisfaction with the gap between advertised and actual products. Multiple customers documented their experiences on platforms like Reddit, showing the broad scope of the deceptive practices. | medium |
The Bottom Line
What this case means for consumer rights · 5 points
| 01 | This case represents a fundamental breach of trust between a major restaurant chain and its customers. Subway systematically promised one product while delivering another, undermining the basic expectations consumers have when viewing food advertisements. | high |
| 02 | The lawsuit seeks statutory damages of fifty dollars per unit purchased under GBL Section 349, and five hundred dollars per unit under GBL Section 350. These penalties aim to compensate victims and deter future deceptive practices. | medium |
| 03 | Plaintiff requests class certification for all persons who purchased Steak & Cheese sandwiches through Subway’s digital platforms for pickup or delivery from New York stores during the class period. Common questions of law and fact predominate across all class members. | medium |
| 04 | The case demands that Subway bear financial responsibility for notifying all class members of the alleged misrepresentations and omissions. Consumers deserve awareness of how the company deceived them and what remedies they may pursue. | medium |
| 05 | Absent class action relief, the resulting multiplicity of individual lawsuits would burden both class members and the court system. A class action provides the superior method for fair and efficient adjudication of these widespread consumer harm claims. | medium |
Timeline of Events
October 2021
Class period begins for alleged deceptive advertising practices
April 2024
Consumer posts comparison on Reddit showing Subway order versus advertisement (approximately 6 months before filing)
August 23, 2024
Plaintiff Anna Tollison purchases Steak & Cheese sandwich through mobile app from Jamaica, NY location for $6.99 plus tax
October 28, 2024
Class action complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Direct Quotes from the Legal Record
QUOTE 1
The core deception
allegations
“Subway uses photographs in its advertisements that make it appear that the Steak & Cheese sandwich contains at least 200% more meat than the actual sandwiches that customers receive.”
💡 This statement establishes the fundamental claim that Subway systematically deceived customers about portion sizes
QUOTE 2
Material overstatement
allegations
“Subway materially overstates the amount of meat in its advertisements for the Product by at least 200%.”
💡 The complaint quantifies the extent of the alleged deception with a specific percentage
QUOTE 3
Widespread complaints
allegations
“Numerous other customers have complained on social media that Subway’s advertisements for the Steak & Cheese sandwich are grossly misleading.”
💡 This shows the deceptive practice affected many consumers beyond just the named plaintiff
QUOTE 4
Financial harm during crisis
profit
“Subway actions are especially concerning now that inflation, food, and meat prices are very high and many consumers, especially lower income consumers, are struggling financially.”
💡 The timing of this deception exploited vulnerable consumers during economic hardship
QUOTE 5
Unfair competition
profit
“Subway is also unfairly competing with restaurants that fairly advertise the size of their menu items.”
💡 The deceptive advertising harmed honest competitors as well as consumers
QUOTE 6
Diverting sales
profit
“Subway advertises larger portions of food to steer consumers to its restaurants for their meals and away from competitors that fairly advertise the size of their menu items, unfairly diverting sales that would have gone to competitors.”
💡 This demonstrates how Subway gained market advantage through deception rather than honest competition
QUOTE 7
Plaintiff’s experience
allegations
“After she picked up and began eating her sandwich, Plaintiff realized that there was barely any steak in the sandwich and that the photographs that she relied on were grossly misleading.”
💡 The plaintiff discovered the deception only after purchase and consumption had begun
QUOTE 8
Reliance on false images
allegations
“Plaintiff viewed the advertisements for the Steak & Cheese sandwich on Subway’s mobile ordering application and relied on said photographs in choosing to purchase said sandwich.”
💡 This establishes the causal link between the deceptive advertising and the purchase decision
QUOTE 9
Would not have purchased
economic
“If Plaintiff knew that the Steak & Cheese sandwich contained substantially less than the amount of meat as advertised, she would not have purchased said sandwich.”
💡 The deception directly caused purchases that would not have occurred with truthful advertising
QUOTE 10
Willful deception
accountability
“Defendants made their untrue and/or misleading statements and representations willfully, wantonly, and with reckless disregard for the truth.”
💡 This characterizes the misconduct as intentional rather than accidental
QUOTE 11
Uniform misrepresentations
profit
“Defendants’ material misrepresentations were substantially uniform in content, presentation, and impact upon consumers at large.”
💡 Every customer saw the same misleading advertisements, making this a systematic practice
QUOTE 12
Lower value than represented
economic
“Subway’s advertisements for the Product are unfair and financially damaging to consumers as they are receiving a product that is materially lower in value than what is being represented.”
💡 Customers suffered concrete financial harm by receiving less value than they paid for
QUOTE 13
Legal violation
accountability
“The conduct of Defendants alleged herein constitutes recurring, unlawful deceptive acts and practices in violation of GBL § 349, and as such, Plaintiff and the members of the Class seek monetary damages.”
💡 The complaint frames these practices as clear violations of New York consumer protection law
QUOTE 14
Class size
accountability
“At this time, Plaintiff believes that the Class includes thousands of members.”
💡 The scope of harm extended to thousands of consumers across New York
QUOTE 15
Without class action, injustice prevails
economic
“Absent a class action, Defendants likely would retain the benefits of its wrongdoing, and there would be a failure of justice.”
💡 Individual litigation is impractical, making class action the only path to accountability
Frequently Asked Questions
What exactly is Subway accused of doing?
Subway is accused of using photographs in advertisements that show its Steak & Cheese sandwich containing at least 200% more meat than customers actually receive. The lawsuit claims this misleading advertising appears on Subway’s website and mobile application, deceiving customers about the product they are purchasing.
Who can be part of this lawsuit?
The class includes all persons or entities that purchased a Steak & Cheese sandwich through Subway’s website or mobile application for pickup or delivery from a Subway store located in New York State between October 28, 2021, and the final disposition of this case.
How much money did customers lose?
Customers paid approximately $6.99 plus tax for sandwiches that contained far less meat than advertised. The lawsuit claims damages amount to at minimum the price Subway charges for double meat portions, since advertisements showed roughly 200% more meat than delivered.
Did Subway deceive customers about other sandwiches too?
Yes. The complaint states that Subway also falsely advertises many other sandwiches, including the Cheesy Garlic Steak. Customer complaints on YouTube documented that sandwich looking really skimpy compared to advertised pictures.
What laws did Subway allegedly break?
The lawsuit alleges Subway violated New York General Business Law Section 349, which prohibits deceptive acts or practices in business, and Section 350, which prohibits false advertising. Both are New York consumer protection statutes.
Why does this matter during inflation?
The lawsuit emphasizes that Subway’s actions are especially concerning because inflation, food prices, and meat prices are very high right now. Many consumers, particularly lower income customers, are struggling financially and rely on advertised value when making purchasing decisions.
How did Subway gain unfair advantage over competitors?
By advertising larger portions than it delivers, Subway steered customers away from competitors who honestly advertise their menu item sizes. This unfairly diverted sales that would have gone to restaurants that accurately represent their products.
What evidence supports these claims?
The complaint includes side-by-side comparisons of advertised images versus actual sandwiches received. It also cites numerous customer complaints on social media platforms like Reddit and YouTube documenting the discrepancy between advertisements and actual products.
What damages are being sought?
The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages for the difference in value between advertised and actual products, costs incurred for travel or delivery, statutory damages of $50 per unit under GBL Section 349, statutory damages of $500 per unit under GBL Section 350, plus interest and attorney fees.
What can I do if I bought one of these sandwiches?
If you purchased a Steak & Cheese sandwich from a New York Subway location through their website or mobile app between October 28, 2021, and now, you may be part of the class. You can contact the plaintiff’s attorneys at The Russo Firm or monitor the case for updates about how to participate or file a claim if the case is certified and proceeds.
Explore by category
02
Product Safety Violations
When companies sell dangerous goods, consumers pay the price.
View Cases →
06
Financial Fraud & Corruption
Lies, scams, and executive impunity that distort markets.
View Cases →Related posts:
A Missed Deadline Lets AXA Equitable Evade Allegations of Nationwide Consumer Fraud
Grocery Chain Faces Class-Action Over Deceptive Pricing | Stop & Shop
Power Giants Accused of Exploiting the Poor | Appalachian Power and American Electric Power
How Kendal Nutricare’s Toddler Drink Exploits Parents and Harms Children
