FirstAlerts

SUBWAY in Chicago Failed Its Inspection

A Subway location in Chicago failed its public health inspection on August 10, 2026, before passing a follow-up inspection on August 17, 2026.

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 19, 2026, 11:25 a.m. ET
The located at in , , Illinois, on August 10, 2026, according to official city health inspection files. The situation is open and developing. The establishment was inspected again on August 17, 2026, with the result listed as "Pass". Official health documentation classified the inspection under . The inspector noted the following observations during the August 10 inspection: - "OBSERVED BLACK SLIMY SUBSTANCES ON INTERIOR WATER COMPONENTS OF THE ICE MAKER, DRIPPING INTO ICE \"ICE IS USED FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION\". INSTRUCTED MANAGEMENT TO TURN OFF MACHINE, REMOVE ICE AND HAVE INTERIOR OF ICE MAKER CLEANED AND SANITIZED AND MAINTAINED.PRIORITY FOUNDATION VIOLATION 7-38-005, CITATION ISSUED." - "OBSERVED CHIPPED PAINT AND RUST ON THE WIRE STORAGE RACKS IN THE WALK-IN COOLER. INSTRUCTED TO REMOVE CHIPPED PAINT AND RUST AND REPAINT OR REPLACE THE SHELVES AND MAINTAIN." - "OBSERVED BLACKENED, MOLDY WALL CAULKING AT THE 3-COMPARTMENT SINK.INSTRUCTED TO REPLACE AND MAINTAIN."

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 119 Aug 2026, 15:25current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.