In 2013, a teenager in Australia posted a photo of a Subway footlong sandwich next to a tape measure. The sandwich measured 11 inches, not 12. That single photo sparked lawsuits across the United States and one of the most memorable class action cases of the decade.
The Photo That Started It All
The photo spread quickly on social media, and people everywhere started measuring their own sandwiches. Many found the same thing, with footlongs coming up short by an inch or so. News outlets picked up the story, and it didn’t take long for lawyers to get involved.
Within weeks, several class action lawsuits were filed against Subway in different states. The suits claimed the company misled customers by advertising footlong sandwiches that weren’t actually a foot long. The cases were later combined and sent to a federal court in Wisconsin.
What the Lawsuits Claimed
The customers argued that “footlong” is a specific measurement, not a vague marketing term. If you pay for 12 inches of sandwich, the argument went, you should get 12 inches of sandwich. They said Subway had shortchanged customers over millions of sales.
Subway argued that “footlong” was a brand name rather than a guarantee of exact length. The company also explained that its bread dough is portioned the same way every time. Any variation in length comes from the baking process, not from an effort to cheat customers.
The Evidence That Weakened the Case
During the case, evidence showed that the amount of meat and cheese in each sandwich was standardized. Every footlong got the same amount of fillings regardless of whether the bread came out a little shorter. That meant customers weren’t actually getting less food.
That point was a big problem for the plaintiffs. It’s hard to claim financial harm when you receive the same amount of food either way. The missing inch was mostly bread and air.
The Settlement
In 2015, the parties reached a settlement. Subway agreed to take steps to make sure its bread measured at least 12 inches, such as providing tools to measure bread and checking compliance in stores. Customers didn’t receive any money.
The lawyers, though, were set to receive $525,000 in fees, and the named plaintiffs were to get $500 each. That imbalance drew criticism from people who argued the lawsuit mostly benefited the attorneys. A class member named Ted Frank formally objected, arguing the deal was worthless to customers.
The Appeals Court Steps In
In 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit threw out the settlement. The court said the deal gave class members essentially nothing of value while paying the lawyers well, and it described the settlement as worthless to the customers it was supposed to help. Lathrop GPM has a clear breakdown of the ruling if you want the legal details.
The court also pointed out that the bread length couldn’t be perfectly controlled anyway, because natural variation in baking would continue. With no real benefit for customers, the settlement couldn’t stand. The case effectively ended there. Seyfarth Shaw’s class action blog called it a ruling well worth reading for anyone who follows these cases.
What the Subway Case Teaches About Class Actions
The Subway footlong lawsuit is often used as an example of class actions gone wrong. Class actions exist to help large groups of people who each suffered a small harm, and they can be powerful tools for holding companies accountable. But courts are supposed to make sure settlements actually benefit the class, not just the lawyers.
In this case, the appeals court did exactly that. It’s a reminder that judges don’t just rubber-stamp settlements. They’re responsible for protecting the people who aren’t in the room.
More Than Just a Missing Inch
Looking back, the Subway case started with a funny photo and ended with an important ruling about fairness in class action settlements. It also became part of the lore of strange lawsuits, alongside cases like the Red Bull lawsuit and the Pepsi fighter jet case. Each one shows how advertising promises get tested in court.
And yes, if you measure your next footlong, it might still come up a little short. Bread is bread, after all. Now at least you know the legal history behind that missing inch.