Indictment in the Pandoro-gate case: fraud in digital marketing

1. The facts

   According to official records, on January 29, 2025, a writ of summons for trial was issued against Chiara Ferragni, her collaborators, the top management of Balocco, and Francesco Cannillo (Cerealitalia). The case concerns the promotion of the Pink Christmas pandoro in 2022, presented as a charitable initiative for the Regina Margherita Hospital in Turin. The current procedural stage indicates that an indictment has been reached, with the trial scheduled to begin on September 23, 2025, before the Court of Milan.

   The prosecution claims that a deceptive arrangement was organized to lead consumers to believe that purchasing the product directly contributed to a donation for medical equipment. In reality, the 50,000 euro donation had been made by the confectionery company months before the launch, while the influencer-linked companies reportedly earned over one million euros for brand licensing and promotion, with no variation in the donated amount based on actual sales.

2. The laws at play

   The legal centerpiece of the case is Art. 640 c.p. (Fraud), which penalizes anyone who, through artifice or deception, by misleading someone, procures an unjust profit for themselves or others to the detriment of another.

   1. The statutory base penalty provides for imprisonment from six months to three years.
   2. The Prosecutor's Office also alleges Art. 61 n. 5 c.p. (Impaired defense), an aggravating circumstance triggered when taking advantage of conditions of time, place, or person that hinder public or private defense.
   3. In this context, the physical distance between seller and buyer typical of e-commerce and social media marketing is considered an element that limits the consumer's ability to verify the truthfulness of advertising claims.

3. What the case law says

   The case law of the Court of Cassation has clarified that in electronic commerce, the aggravating factor of impaired defense is generally recognized, as the lack of direct contact and the virtual nature of the transaction place the buyer in a position of informational vulnerability. Courts have consistently distinguished between mere advertising puffery, defined as dolus bonus and criminally irrelevant, and actual contractual fraud.

   According to established case law, the offense occurs when silence or ambiguity regarding essential transaction details (such as the actual allocation of proceeds in a charitable purchase) is designed to deceive the buyer. Jurisprudence has further established that the solidarity motive can constitute the decisive element of consent: if the consumer would not have completed the purchase without the charity promise, the infringement upon their financial self-determination constitutes the damage required by criminal law.

5. Analysis drafted and verified with edit.legal

   To verify the provisions cited in this article, we used edit.legal. Test our legal AI on official sources and apply it to your own matters.

   Try edit.legal AI

8. Lessons for professionals

   1. Ensure strict alignment between contractual charity agreements and the timing of advertising campaigns to prevent claims of criminal premeditation.
   2. Draft social media disclaimers clearly stating whether donations are fixed or variable based on sales volume, minimizing the risk of misleading interpretations.
   3. Keep in mind that applying the impaired defense aggravating factor to web transactions is now established case law, leading to stricter penalties for offenses committed via digital channels.

References: Articolo 640 Codice PenaleArticolo 61 n. 5 Codice PenaleD.Lgs. 206/2005 (Codice del Consumo)Citazione a giudizio 29.1.2025Processo dal 23.9.2025 Trib. Milano

Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa·ICAMUpdated 17 September 2026Content drafted with AI support and subject to editorial source checks. Despite these controls, inaccuracies may remain: reports and rectification requests are welcome. Report a correction