Italian company seeks €1,5 million in damages from a small magazine. Court rules against

Questo articolo è disponibile anche in:

The judge said: because the journalistic criticism of commercial advertising campaigns is legitimate – Ossigeno defended “Il Fatto Alimentare” online newspaper

OSSIGENO – May 29^th  2025 – The Civil Court of Venice has issued a highly significant ruling reaffirming the value of the right to critical journalism, especially when exercised within the limits of truth, moderation, and social relevance. It confirms, in particular, the right of newspapers to report on incidents involving unfair advertising campaigns launched  to promote the purchase of consumer food products.

The ruling rejected the claim for €1.5 million in damages for defamation filed by Acqua Minerale San Benedetto S.p.A. San Benedetto filed a civil suit against a small newspaper, “Il Fatto Alimentare,” which focuses on food quality and informs consumers about the accuracy of advertising materials used to promote product sales. Damages were sought from the newspaper and its chief editor, journalist Roberto La Pira. The company disputed  three articles published between August and October 2022, calling them defamatory and damaging to the company’s reputation. The Court found the articles’ content to be accurate and San Benedetto was ordered to pay legal costs, totalling €10,860, plus additional costs. The company’s request for compensation was rejected in its entirety, as was its request to suppress the articles and publish the ruling in major newspapers. Roberto La Pira’s request to sue San Benedetto for vexatious litigation was also rejected.

THE CASE – At the centre of the dispute was the TV commercial from the San Benedetto advertising campaign, “My Secret,” starring Elisabetta Canalis. The ad deceived  consumers with a message deemed misleading by the IAP (Institute for Advertising Self-Discipline) and potentially harmful to young people on extreme diets, because it subtly led them to believe that that particular bottled water could replace breakfast. “Il Fatto Alimentare” initially reported the ad, describing  it “censorship” by the IAP, but corrected this definition the following day at the company’s request. Il Fatto Alimentare informed its readers after San Benedetto received the IAP’s notification and modified its ad. The mineral water company responded by suing the newspaper, accusing it of having suffered serious financial damage and that in its articles it had improperly characterized the IAP’s intervention as “censorship.” Moreover, the excessive size of the claim created a problem for the newspaper in question, as the cost of defence is proportionate to the value of the claim. These accusations appeared exaggerated and specious, as the ruling confirmed.

THE JUDGE Lisa Micochero recognized that Roberto La Pira’s newspaper had fully exercised its right to criticize. She defined the contested articles as “expressing plausible, well-founded, and moderately toned opinions.” The use of the term “censorship” was deemed to have no harmful impact, considering the newspaper’s timely correction of the term the following day.

OSSIGENO accepted Il Fatto Alimentare‘s invitation to join the defence and so Attorney Andrea Di Pietro, coordinator of Ossigeno’s Legal Help Desk, joined the newspaper’s defence team, along with attorneys Paolo Martinello and Marco Stucchi of the Milan Bar Association. These attorneys have historically defended the newspaper and had already successfully opposed the urgent preliminary injunction through which San Benedetto had requested, but failed to obtain, the suppression of the articles.

Ossigeno intervened alongside Il Fatto Alimentare because it believed, correctly as the ruling proved,  that this case offers a strategically important opportunity to raise awareness of the serious threats and legal actions to the freedom of expression and that the critical role of newspapers in Italy must be defended.  ASP/wt