[Mariner]

“Why should Subway do anything but file a strong counter-claim for business defamation.”

Well, because it may not have been tuna at that franchise.

They’d be foolish to claim such an outfit under the corporate banner and what must be federal court.

And I’ve never seen a defamation suit prevail if the facts are provable.

Subway does not know whether they are.

[StAnDeliver]

They didn't sue the local store franchisee or even the d/b/a, these two fugly hindis and their pair of pettifoggers sued SUBWAY, so they have to prove it's NOT TUNA in EVERY STORE, not the other way around.

InsideEdition had already proved it's TUNA from a reliable national testing firm, as has SUBWAY.

So the Plaintiffs were facing dismissal and instead of taking the L, got the NYT involved. The NYeT admitted straight-up in the article about the weakness of their testing: "When tuna is cooked, its DNA becomes denatured - meaning that test results could be inaccurate due to the change."