A Brooklyn customer named Anna Tollison claimed Subway's ads include photos of sandwiches with \
Summary
Anna Tollison has filed a class action lawsuit against Subway, claiming its Steak & Cheese sandwich is falsely advertised to appear as if it contains 200% more meat than it actually does.
Tollison alleges that Subway’s misleading advertising causes consumers to overpay, which is concerning due to inflation.
Her lawyer said that while such cases often face dismissal, if this one proceeds, it could lead to compensation and class certification, allowing affected customers to seek refunds for the alleged misrepresentation.
Not defending Subway, but food advertisement / photography uses all sorts of dirty tricks to make it look more appealing. What's photographed may not even be edible.
It's possible the amount of meat is the same in the photo but just shoved and piled up on the side to look like more.
That said, advertisements should be forced to accurately represent what you’ll be served and not an idealized version of it.
In countries like Japan, this is enforced, and what it looks like on the package has to match what it looks like in real life, down to size and shape. They aren't allowed to "enlarge to show texture" or show it smaller than it is, either.
I’ll offer that this seems to be (somewhat?) true in Canada as well. The pic on the menu was pretty much exactly what I received on my plate. I was surprised because I’m used to the usual “glamor shots” you get on US menus, the perfectly plated dish vs the whatever you actually get. The menu photo seems much more realistic in Canada.
When I was a kid, HBO did a special for kids about deceptive advertising practices- imagine that today. They did a whole segment on food photography and showed people doing things like making ice cream out of vegetable shortening and food coloring. The whole thing fascinated me.
Edit: Found it! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaVM2XG4wvE Apparently it was originally a Consumer Reports thing and this is the VHS version. But I saw it on HBO and HBO made a big deal out of it at the time.
Damn... it's amazing how well I remember this despite not having seen it since probably 1990.
We had a curriculum in school identifying different types of propaganda in advertising. They had us bring in ads from magazines and sort through how they were trying to sell us things.
Likewise, I can't imagine that still being taught today. Seems like it would be one of the first casualties of the modern American way of defunding education.
In most other countries outside the US they are forced to be honest. It's still an idealised version, but you wouldn't be able to get away with showing double meat in Europe.
If I recall, the rule in the US is that the primary food being advertised must be real food, so cereal might have glue instead of milk, because you're not selling the milk. But you can prop it up and cherry-pick as much as you like.
You could style the meat in your sub to look like the ad... but you'd probably find that you have to stack it all up at the edge.
Even with that reasoning, at some point you’ve gone way too far into fraud. This may be it: it doesn’t look possible to make the actual meat look anything like the marketing photo.
Talk about false advertising. Tried to order contact lenses on Lens dot com the other day for someone. Advertised price with rebate seemed reasonable. Create account, (as they require that to proceed) go on about choosing options and filling in info.
Only at the last order page, do they tack on $250 of "taxes and fees" (even though it's a medical device so it's not taxed) and then try to explain away in an info widget that taxes are "stuff we may be charged but we're just making up this bullshit number." Oh, and they charge shipping.
1800contacts did not do either of these things. LensDirect seemed equally non-bullshit but their prices were a bit higher.
How many people get scammed by the "taxes and fees" field figuring, "welp, I guess that's just the price of America."?
Edit: de-hyperlinking the lens site, they don't deserve any clicks, only hate.
Here in EU it's illegal to advertise to consumers without taxes. Regulation is cool when t protects consumers and the environment and it stimulate real competition, instead of the more sophisticated liar.
I grief every time I hear some stupid Republican American call for more deregulation. Deregulation was also what made the banks fail.
But somehow there is little response in USA against the minimal state you can drown in a bathtub?!
Although it's obviously worse to empower the mega corps and the mega rich, over a lawful state regulation against abusing power.
Edit: de-hyperlinking the lens site, they don’t deserve any clicks, only hate.
We used to be a proper country with sandwich shops and delis and now we just got these company chains that can't even manage to make a half decent chopped cheese!
While I agree with your overall sentiment, an italian sub customized to my preferences from WaWa of all places is effing delicious every last time, and they do not skimp on the quantity of meat.
My step kid won't eat PBJs, corn dogs, and thinks they like grilled cheese, but has yet to eat more than a few bites of restaurant grilled cheese. They love crab legs and lobster. My wallet is crying.
Yeah, it's not really new. In the movie Falling Down from 1993 (weird, I thought it was late 80s) has the whole scene where he's complaining about the difference between the advert and what you're served in a fast food place (well also that they wouldn't serve breakfast because it was like a couple of minutes late and almost certainly had some still hot breakfast around, but that's another story).
It's been this way for a long time, all over the world. I'd be amazed if this turned into a world changing case after all this time.
"You see what I mean? It's plump, it's juicy, it's three inches thick. Now, look at this sorry, miserable, squashed thing. Can anybody tell me what's wrong with this picture?"
Don't those photos always have a small print disclaimer on them that says the actual product may not look like that or something along those lines? Is that enough to protect them in a lawsuit?
Fun fact I've been told by laywers in a different industry (software ie EULA and licenses): most of that stuff doesn't do anything. It's a front door lock. But it's ok because for most companies you're also restricted by what lawyers say is ok (oh no we can't use this "git" stuff, it's GPL and GPL is literally going to murder you in your sleep it you use it!?!).