Subway's missing inch: Five reasons the footlong lawsuit is ridiculous
Anybody suing a fast-food chain is news, especially if the lawsuit is petty, outlandish or an obvious attempt at a cash-grab by people who clearly have some time on their hands. The recent lawsuit filed by two New Jersey males against Subway, based on the assertion that the $5 footlong sandwiches are coming up short, is a prime-time example of all three. But what makes this lawsuit really interesting is the subject matter. How important is that extra inch? Is it as significant as two titheads from New Jersey think it is? Or as momentous as their ambulance-rushing lawyer thinks it is?
Here are five reasons why the Subway "pinch an inch" lawsuit is ridiculous. I wonder what Jared thinks about all this drama?
See also: - Size matters: $5 Footlong pushes Subway forward, one foot at a time - Subway in a legal battle over the term "footlong" - Fake meat to coffee crotch: Our top five favorite restaurant lawsuits
Thanks, New Jersey. Thanks a heap.
5. Give New Jersey a worse rep, will ya?--Cuh-MON! The plaintiffs in this case are two New Jerseyites -- John Farley of Evesham and Charles Noah Pendrack of Ocean City -- who supposedly approached attorney Stephen DeNittis separately to file suit in New Jersey against Subway because of the missing inch; DeNittis told ABC News that he's seeking class-action status, and is planning to file this suit in Philly next.
Of course he is.
The Garden State has given us some excellent exports -- life science and medical innovations, Kevin Smith, salt water taffy and the Mason jar -- but those get cancelled out by six consecutive seasons of Jersey Shore and shit like this Subway lawsuit. New Jersey has a "bridge & tunnel" roughneck reputation as it is, and when two tweedle-dum skidmarks -- possibly wearing track suits and gold-plated chains -- decide to drop their jimmies down on an obviously frivolous lawsuit to score some dimes, I think Governor Chris Christie should personally go to their apartments and whack them both in the backs of their heads for making the locals look like bigger dumbf*cks than people in the other 49 -- and Puerto Rico -- already think they are.
4. Chill out, size queens. The embattled cry of "FALSE ADVERTISING!!!" is so old I think it was stitched on Abe Vigoda's college sweater. Sure, when you order a sandwich that is described as a footlong, it should be twelve full inches, but when it falls a little short, like say an inch or so, it's grounds to make a complaint to the employees or managers of the sandwich shop you got it from, not a big enough deal to deserve a lawsuit, in a courthouse, with lawyers and a judge.
If you got a heart-valve replacement part that was an inch short, or the rope being used to hoist you out of a deep, deadly poisoned well was an inch too short, then yes, I'd consider making a few polite inquiries about proper compensation.
But this is bread that you put in your mouth and chew, swallow and digest, then crap out later. The sky is not falling, life as we know it is not affected, and if you get shorted an inch of bread roll, then why not just bitch it out on Facebook like a normal person?
Quit frontin'--this what you're wantin'
3. It's about the basic math, stupid! "When you add this up over time, that comes out to be anywhere between 45 to 60 cents a sandwich over the course of six years, attorney DeNittis told ABC News.
Okay, I'll bite.
I eat at Subway at least twice a month, so that's two footlongs a month times twelve months, times six years at sixty cents per sub. That adds up me theoretically being boned out of $86.40 over a six-year period. This isn't enough of a financial hardship for me to consider suing Subway -- hell, the filing fees are probably more than $86.50 -- and based on this lawyer's premise and good 'ol burden of proof, I would have to be able to reasonably prove that six year's worth of footlong subs were pinched an inch.
Here's the problem: I wasn't measuring my subs -- I was eating them. And it's highly unlikely that the two plaintiffs were measuring their Subway sandwiches for the last six years, and even if they were, I'm thinking that they have issues that a lawsuit won't come close to addressing.
Refuse to eat Subway at your own peril...
2. You could try making your own sammies at home... ...and make them any length you want. No one is forcing anyone upon threat of death by renegade Yakuza clan swords to haul their butt cheeks to Subway for lunch. Suing a business that provides a non-essential product -- sorry, Jared -- over something as trivial as an inch of bread makes me wonder if those two dingleberries ate too many paint chips as children.
Here's a solution to the problem of not getting an inch of bread: Make your own damn sandwiches at home. Bake your own sandwich buns that are exactly twelve inches -- or go batsh*t crazy and make 'em twelve and a half inches long. 1. Most high-profile fast food lawsuits are ridiculous. Trying to milk some jingle out of Subway's teats via a lawsuit seems like reaching around your ass to scratch your elbow -- why not just cut out the legal middle man, grab a black ski mask and a Hello Kitty water gun, and just rob a couple of Subway stores and get loot the old-fashioned way? That would be slightly more honest.
But even scarier than off-highway robbery is this: This entire lawsuit gambit could be a super-secret conspiracy by execs at Quizno's, Jimmy John's and Schlotzsky's Deli, who're meeting in a dimly lit parlor, with cigar smoke and snifters of brandy, when one of them says, "Let's bring those bitches down!" This scheme comes complete with mustache-twirling and the high-up folks at Which Wich and Panera Bread waiting on speed-dial.
Does that sound ridiculous?
No more so than this lawsuit.
Get the Dining Newsletter
The week's top local food news and events, plus interviews with chefs and restaurant owners, dining tips, and a peek at our print review.