Back to the archive

The encyclopedia · Advertising & PR · Marketing decision · 2013

A teenager's photo of an 11-inch 'Footlong' cost Subway a multi-year measuring program

A viral photo showed a Subway 'Footlong' at 11 inches. Class-action suits followed, and Subway spent four years under court order to actually measure its bread.

Subway · 2013-01

What happened

In January 2013, an Australian teenager posted a Facebook photo of a Subway 'Footlong' sandwich laid next to a tape measure showing 11 inches, not 12. The image went viral internationally; The New York Post measured seven Footlongs at a New York location and found four came in at 11 or 11.5 inches.

The name 'Footlong' was a product name, not a guaranteed measurement, and Subway's bread naturally varied in length during baking — but that distinction didn't survive a photo simple enough for anyone to check with a ruler. Class-action lawsuits alleging deceptive marketing were filed across the U.S. between January and June 2013.

A 2014 settlement produced no direct payout to consumers but required Subway to spend at least four years enforcing a 12-inch minimum: measuring tools at every location, sampling and measuring bread during compliance inspections, inspection of ovens and proofers, and updated manuals requiring the 12-inch standard rather than the 11.5-inch minimum previously in use. The settlement's final approval, in 2016, awarded $520,000 in attorney fees and $500 each to ten named plaintiffs — nothing to the broader consumer class.

Why it happened

  • A name implying a precise measurement invites exactly the literal test a viral photo delivers, regardless of any fine-print disclaimer about natural variation.
  • Baking bread to a hard 12-inch minimum needs operational discipline at thousands of locations that a marketing name alone doesn't guarantee.
  • Subway's own manual set an 11.5-inch minimum against a 12-inch marketing name, so its documentation contradicted the advertising before any customer measured anything.
  • A single, easily-replicated photo — a sandwich next to a ruler — spreads faster than any corporate response can catch up to.
What it costa four-year court-supervised measuring program, $520K feesembarrassing

The lesson

A product name promising an exact measurement will eventually meet a customer with a ruler — if the internal standard doesn't match the sign, that gap is a lawsuit waiting on a viral photo.

Aftermath

Subway operated under the court-ordered measuring and inspection regime through the settlement's term, and the episode became a widely cited example of how a single unverified viral image can force years of costly operational compliance regardless of the underlying claim's technical merit.

Sources

spotted an error? The club wants to know.

Comments · 0

    Sign in to join the comments.

    More like this

    Somewhere, someone solved the problem this company failed at. 2nd Opinion →