Although the Milan judge found "there was misleading advertising," as AGCOM had already indicated, and therefore the "deceptive nature of those advertisements," he was unable to address the merits of the case because the aggravating circumstance of the diminished protection afforded to Chiara Ferragni's consumers and followers was dropped.

This can be read in the reasons given by Ilio Mannucci Pacini, last January, in ordering the dismissal of the case of Pandoro gate against Chiara Ferragni and the other two defendants.

"The influencer, like any other testimonial, offers an advertising service , offering to advertise a product for a fee, following the conclusion of commercial agreements with manufacturing companies," the judge emphasizes. And "to assume that the mere fact that a consumer is a follower of an influencer implies that the former not only trusts the latter's recommendations, but that he or she places unconditional and uncritical trust in those 'purchasing recommendations' is questionable, to say the least ," he continues, contesting the approach of Milan prosecutors Eugenio Fusco and Cristian Barilli. The judge maintains that the defense's inadequacy is unfounded, and therefore the trial by direct summons could never have begun: hence the defendants' acquittal, not their acquittal.

"The ruling upholds the defense's argument on the crucial point of the trial," Chiara Ferragni's lawyers, Giuseppe Iannaccone and Marcello Bana, commented with satisfaction, " ruling out the aggravating circumstance of impaired defense. The judge clarified that the widespread dissemination of the message, the use of social media, and the relationship between influencers and the public are not, in themselves, sufficient to constitute circumstances that would impede private defense. With the aggravating circumstance no longer present, the trial should not and could not proceed."

(Unioneonline)

© Riproduzione riservata