The packaging of certain Barilla pastas states that the product is "Italy's #1 Brand of Pasta."  Is this just a statement about Barilla's roots as an Italian company?  Or is it an actual claim that Barilla's products are made in Italy from Italian ingredients?  That was the issue in a lawsuit recently brought in federal court in California. 

In the lawsuit, the plaintiff alleged that Barilla's statement, "Italy's #1 Brand of Pasta," misled consumers into believing that its products are made in Italy from ingredients sourced in Italy.  The plaintiff argued the colors from Italy's flag -- green, white, and red -- near the statement contributed to "further perpetuating the notion that the Products are authentic pastas from Italy."  The plaintiff alleged that Barilla pasta is not made in Italy, but instead is made in plants in Iowa and New York, using ingredients sourced from countries other than Italy. 

The plaintiff also argued that the statement on the packaging should also be interpreted in the context of Barilla's other marketing efforts, which further communicated that the products were Italian-made.  Interestingly, the plaintiff pointed to the Barilla Historical Archive, a Barilla Pasta Museum, and the Barilla Academy, which it says were "designed to promote the brand and company's Italian identity . . . and convince consumers that Barilla brand pastas . . . come from Italian ingredients, [are] processed and manufactured in Italian factories, and then exported for sale to various countries."  

The plaintiff alleged various claims under California law, including false advertising. Barilla moved to dismiss the false advertising claim, arguing that the statement, "Italy's #1 Brand of Pasta," is not misleading to a reasonable consumer.  In California, the reasonable consumer standard requires "a probability that a significant portion of the general consuming public or of targeted consumers, acting reasonably in the circumstances, could be misled." 

Barilla argued that reasonable consumers will not be misled because it's not confusing to consumers to invoke the company's Italian roots through "generalized representations of the brand as a whole."  Noting that the statement is a registered trademark, Barilla said that the statement is on the packaging merely to "exclusively identify Barilla (not Italy) as the source of the product."  

The court disagreed, and, on a motion to dismiss, allowed the claim to continue. Taking into account the language of the claim, the fact that the colors from the Italian flag appeared next to the claim, and the fact that the plaintiff had pointed to an overall marketing campaign that emphasizes the company's Italian identity, the court held that the plaintiff had plausibly alleged a false advertising claim. 

The court also rejected Barilla's argument that a statement that appears on another panel of the packaging that explains that the product is "Made in the USA" and that gives the company's address in Illinois cures any potential confusion.  Citing the Ninth Circuit, the court said that "reasonable consumers should not be expected to look beyond misleading representations on the front of the box to discover the truth . . . in small print on the side of the box." 

Sinatro v. Barilla America, No. 22-cv-03460 (N.D. Cal.  October 17, 2022).