Pandoro-Gate Chiara Ferragni is acquitted, but disaster looms again
Despite the dismissal of the criminal case against Chiara Ferragni, her case is not yet closed: Now that the charges have been dropped, the question of reputational damage and financial loss due to months of media coverage remains.
No time? blue News summarizes for you
- The Milan court has acquitted influencer Chiara Ferragni as the case has been downgraded and the charges dismissed after the charges were withdrawn.
- No automatic compensation will be granted. The lack of a criminal conviction once again raises the question of civil liability and damage to image.
- Possible civil proceedings could focus on the role of the media and a possible overstepping of boundaries.
The verdict of the Milan court, which acquitted Chiara Ferragni in the case concerning the "Pink Christmas" Pandoro dolls and Easter eggs, puts an end to the criminal part of the case.
But this does not settle all the questions.
On the contrary: after months of media coverage and the resulting damage to the company's image, is it possible to claim damages? And above all: against whom?
What the judge actually decided
In his decision, which was handed down in summary proceedings, Judge Ilio Mannucci Pacini of the Third Criminal Chamber of the Court of Milan excluded the aggravating circumstance of reduced online consumer protection.
This technical step had a decisive effect: the offense in question was downgraded from aggravated fraud to simple fraud, meaning that it could only be prosecuted on complaint.
As the complaint filed by Codacons was withdrawn following an agreement on compensation, the proceedings were discontinued. There was no conviction and no criminal liability was established.
The same applies to the co-defendants Fabio Damato and Francesco Cannillo .
Acquittal does not mean complete absolution
As the Italian newspaper "Leggo " reports, an acquittal is not a complete acquittal from a legal perspective if it is justified, for example, by the fact that "the facts do not exist". But one crucial fact remains: There is no criminal conviction.
There is hardly any scope for a lawsuit against the state: Ferragni was never subjected to restrictions on her personal freedom, so she cannot claim unjustified imprisonment. There is also no miscarriage of justice, which presupposes a legally binding conviction that is later overturned.
An ongoing investigation and prosecution, even with considerable media attention, does not automatically give rise to a claim for compensation.
Defamation? Not a viable hypothesis
According to "Leggo", even the defamation claim route appears to be difficult. The investigation was not based on a knowingly false complaint, but on the public prosecutor's assessment of allegedly misleading advertising messages.
The subsequent reclassification of the offense does not change the fact that there was originally a connection that was considered worthy of investigation.
The real front: damage to reputation
The most concrete reason remains reputational damage. For months, the influencer was portrayed as guilty in parts of the public even before the verdict, with talk of fraud and feigned charity as if these were already proven facts.
In such cases, Italian civil law makes it possible to take action against those who have exceeded the limits of the right to report, turning the information into a kind of prior conviction.
However, publicity is not enough. In order to receive compensation, Chiara Ferragni would have to prove concrete economic consequences: Breaches of contract, terminated collaborations or a measurable loss of brand value.
It would also be essential to prove a direct link between these damages and incorrect or exaggerated media communication.
Still an open game
"Leggo" summarizes that the decision of the Court of Milan does not automatically lead to compensation, but provides influencer Ferragni with a legal basis to challenge the representation of guilt associated with the case.
The criminal proceedings were concluded without a conviction. The image issue, on the other hand, remains open and could come before a civil judge to determine whether the media coverage crossed a line.
