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 ," he continues, contesting the approach of Milan prosecutors Eugenio Fusco and Cristian Barilli.
