Chiara Ferragni, “unfair practice”: the court’s confirmation on pandoro

«With a sensational ruling, the Court of Turin accepted the appeal presented by Codacons, the Association of Users of Radio and Television Services and Adusbef, ascertaining the incorrect practice implemented by the Balocco company in the case of the ‘Pink Christmas’ pandoro designed by Ferragni, and the deceptiveness of the messages launched to the public about the charity campaign associated with the sale of the product”. Codacons communicated this in a note. «A very important sentence – says Codacons – which now on the one hand opens the way to compensation in favor of all consumers who had purchased the pandoro in question, and on the other aggravates the position of Chiara Ferragni in the investigation for aggravated fraud conducted by Milan Prosecutor’s Office”.

For the first civil section of the Court of Turin (judge Dr. Gabriella Ratti) «the methods of advertising and dissemination of the commercial practice actually implemented (also) by the company Balocco SpA have led consumers to understand, contrary to the truth, that, by purchasing the ‘Pandoro PinkChristmas’, they would have contributed directly and proportionally to raising the funds needed to finance the Regina Margherita Hospital in Turin for the purchase of a new machine, which would have allowed it to explore new avenues for the therapeutic treatment of children suffering from Osteosarcoma and Ewing’s Sarcoma’ – we read in the sentence – Even the significant difference in price of the ‘Pandoro PinkChristmas’ compared to its equivalent classic Pandoro Balocco evidently contributed to inducing the consumer to be convinced that the higher price was a direct contribution to raise the funds needed for the charity project”.

Therefore, the document continues, «through the dissemination of this press release, it was clearly made clear to consumers that, by purchasing the PinkChristmas pandoro, they would contribute directly and proportionally to the sponsored donation in favor of the Regina Margherita Hospital in Turin, as ‘is that a future verb was used (‘…whose sales will be used to finance…’) […]as correctly highlighted by the appellant parties, it was not so much the price itself of the ‘Pandoro PinkChristmas’, which can be freely determined given that it is a free market, but rather its being put on sale at a price approximately two and a half times higher than that of the classic pandoro Balocco to have evidently strengthened the consumer’s belief that, with the purchase of the product, he would have contributed to raising funds for the machinery for the research of childhood bone tumors in favor of the Regina Margherita Hospital in Turin and that this contribution to the donation was included in this increased price”.

«The commercial practice in question, then, in addition to being contrary to professional diligence, was at least capable of distorting to an appreciable extent the economic behavior, in relation to the product, of the average consumer – the sentence continues – The aforementioned messages disseminated to public, in fact, were found to be suitable for providing an incorrect representation of the charitable initiative relating to the raising of funds to finance the purchase of a new machine, which would have allowed the exploration of new avenues for the therapeutic treatment of children suffering from Osteosarcoma and Sarcoma Ewing by the Regina Margherita Hospital in Turin, suggesting, contrary to the truth, that by purchasing the ‘Pandoro PinkChristmas’ the consumer could contribute to the initiative.” For the Court of Turin, therefore, “it must ascertain and declare the liability of the defendant company Balocco SpA for unfair commercial practices pursuant to 20, paragraph 2, 21 and 22 of the Consumer Code, as indicated in the justification”.