Case 4:22-cv-03460-DMR Document 1 Filed 06/11/22 Page 1 of 53
`
`
`
`
`CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
`Ryan J. Clarkson (SBN 257074)
`rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
`Shireen M. Clarkson (SBN 237882)
`sclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
`Katherine A. Bruce (SBN 288694)
`kbruce@clarksonlawfirm.com
`Kelsey J. Elling (SBN 337915)
`kelling@clarksonlawfirm.com
`22525 Pacific Coast Highway
`Malibu, CA 90265
`Tel: (213) 788-4050
`Fax: (213) 788-4070
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`MATTHEW SINATRO, and JESSICA
`Case No.:
`
`PROST, individually and on behalf of all others
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`similarly situated,
`
`
`1. Violation of Unfair Competition Law
`
`(Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et
`seq.)
`2. Violation of False Advertising Law
`(Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500, et
`seq.)
`3. Violation of Consumers Legal
`Remedies Act (Cal. Civ. Code §§
`1750, et seq.)
`4. Breach of Warranty
`5. Unjust Enrichment
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`vs.
`
`BARILLA AMERICA, INC.
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`Case No. UNASSIGNED
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`22525 Pacific Coast Highway
`
`CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
`
`Malibu, CA 90265
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-03460-DMR Document 1 Filed 06/11/22 Page 2 of 53
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`V.
`
`Page No.
`COMPLAINT ...................................................................................................................................1
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................1
`II.
`JURISDICTION ......................................................................................................................8
`III. VENUE ....................................................................................................................................8
`IV. PARTIES .................................................................................................................................8
`A.
`Plaintiffs .......................................................................................................................8
`B.
`Defendant ...................................................................................................................10
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS ................................................................................................11
`A.
`Consumer Demand for Authentic Italian-Made Pastas .............................................11
`B.
`Defendant’s Brand Strategy and Long-Standing Marketing Campaign ....................14
`C.
`Plaintiffs and Reasonable Consumers Were Misled by the Challenged Representation
`into Buying the Products, to Their Detriment, Consistent with Defendant’s Deliberate
`Marketing Scheme to Exact a Premium for the Falsely Advertised Products ...........22
`The Products are Substantially Similar ......................................................................26
`D.
`No Adequate Remedy at Law ....................................................................................27
`E.
`VI. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS ......................................................................................30
`VII. CAUSES OF ACTION ..........................................................................................................33
` COUNT ONE .........................................................................................................................33
`“Unfair” Prong ...........................................................................................................36
`“Fraudulent” Prong ....................................................................................................38
`“Unlawful” Prong ......................................................................................................39
` COUNT TWO ........................................................................................................................40
` COUNT THREE ....................................................................................................................42
` COUNT FOUR ......................................................................................................................45
` COUNT FIVE ........................................................................................................................46
`VIII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF ........................................................................................................48
`Case No. UNASSIGNED
`-i-
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`22525 Pacific Coast Highway
`
`CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
`
`Malibu, CA 90265
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-03460-DMR Document 1 Filed 06/11/22 Page 3 of 53
`
`
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL .....................................................................................................50
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case No. UNASSIGNED
`
`-ii-
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`22525 Pacific Coast Highway
`
`CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
`
`Malibu, CA 90265
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-03460-DMR Document 1 Filed 06/11/22 Page 4 of 53
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`Plaintiffs Matthew Sinatro and Jessica Prost (“Plaintiffs”), individually and on behalf
`1.
`of all others similarly situated, as more fully described herein (the “Class” and “Class Members”),
`bring this class action complaint against Defendant Barilla America, Inc. (“Defendant”), and
`alleges the following based upon investigation, information, and belief, unless otherwise expressly
`stated as based upon personal knowledge.
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Synopsis. In an effort to increase profits and to obtain an unfair competitive advantage
`2.
`over its lawfully acting competitors, Defendant falsely and misleadingly labels certain of its
`Barilla® brand pastas as “ITALY’S #1 BRAND OF PASTA®,” deliberately leading reasonable
`consumers, including Plaintiffs, to believe that the Products are made in Italy (hereinafter, “Italian
`Origin Representation” or “Challenged Representation”). Defendant reinforces the Challenged
`Representation on the Products by replicating Italy’s national flag’s green, white, and red colors
`surrounding the Challenged Representation, further perpetuating the notion that the Products are
`authentic pastas from Italy. Fair and accurate depictions of the Products’ front packaging, from each
`of the five product lines (Classic Blue Box, Collezione Artisanal, Gluten Free, Veggie, and Whole
`Wheat), are depicted below with the Challenged Representation circled in red.
`(1) Barilla® Classic Blue Box Pasta (Angel Hair) (Exhibit 1-1):
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`See also Barilla® Classic Blue Box Pasta Front Packaging, Exhibit 1-1 to 1-34.
`Case No. UNASSIGNED
`-1-
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`22525 Pacific Coast Highway
`
`CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
`
`Malibu, CA 90265
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-03460-DMR Document 1 Filed 06/11/22 Page 5 of 53
`
`
`
`(2) Barilla® Collezione Artisanal Pasta (Bucatini) (Exhibit 1-35):
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`See also Barilla® Collezione Artisanal Pasta Front Packaging, Exhibit 1-35 to 1-40.
`(3) Barilla® Gluten Free Pasta (Elbows) (Exhibit 1-41):
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`See also Barilla® Gluten Free Pasta Front Packaging, Exhibit 1-41 to 1-45.
`Case No. UNASSIGNED
`-2-
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`22525 Pacific Coast Highway
`
`CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
`
`Malibu, CA 90265
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-03460-DMR Document 1 Filed 06/11/22 Page 6 of 53
`
`(4) Barilla® Veggie Pasta (Rotini) (Exhibit 1-46):
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`See also Barilla® Veggie Pasta Front Packaging, Exhibit 1-46 to 1-47.
`
`Case No. UNASSIGNED
`
`-3-
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`22525 Pacific Coast Highway
`
`CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
`
`Malibu, CA 90265
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-03460-DMR Document 1 Filed 06/11/22 Page 7 of 53
`
`(5) Barilla® Whole Grain Pasta (Elbows) (Exhibit 1-48):
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`See also Barilla® Whole Grain Pasta Front Packaging, Exhibit 1-48 to 1-54.
`Case No. UNASSIGNED
`-4-
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`22525 Pacific Coast Highway
`
`CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
`
`Malibu, CA 90265
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-03460-DMR Document 1 Filed 06/11/22 Page 8 of 53
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`The Deception of the Challenged Representation. The Challenged Representation
`3.
`has misled reasonable consumers, including Plaintiffs, into believing that the Products are made in
`Italy. However, contrary to this labeling, the Products are not made in Italy, the Products’
`ingredients are not from Italy, and the Products are not manufactured in Italy. Rather, the Products
`are made and manufactured in Iowa and New York, with ingredients (such as the main ingredient,
`durum wheat) sourced in countries other than Italy.1 Through falsely, misleadingly, and deceptively
`labeling the Products, Defendant sought to take advantage of consumers’ desire for authentic Italian
`pasta, while cutting costs and reaping the financial benefits of manufacturing the Products in the
`United States of America. Defendant has done so at the expense of unwitting consumers, as well as
`Defendant’s lawfully acting competitors, over whom Defendant maintains an unfair competitive
`advantage.
`The Products. The Products at issue are Barilla® brand pastas sold to consumers in
`4.
`the United States that contain the Challenged Representation on the front labels and/or packaging,
`regardless of the Product’s size or variations—such as flavor, type of pasta, or type of packaging
`(collectively referred to herein and throughout this complaint as the “Products”), which include,
`but are not necessarily limited to, the following product lines (Classic Blue Box, Collezione
`Artisanal, Gluten Free, Vegie, and Whole Grain) and pastas:
`(1) Barilla® Classic Blue Box Pastas, including
`a.
`Angel Hair,
`1.
`2.
`Campanelle,
`3.
`Cellentani,
`4.
`Ditalini,
`5.
`Elbows,
`6.
`Farfalle,
`
`
`1 See Exhibit 3f [FAQ—Company Related (Q3)] (“Barilla Pasta that is sold in the United States is
`made in our plants in Ames, IA and Avon, NY. . . . Barilla purchases its wheat from around the
`world”); YOUTUBE, Barilla US, Barilla | Meet the Team: Greg, Wheat-Sourcing Expert (60s),
`https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BK1zN2iz0dw (accessed 6/10/2022) (link to video on Barilla
`Group’s Barilla Brand Webpage at https://www.barillagroup.com/en/brands/barilla/ (accessed
`6/10/2022) (describing the North American company’s careful selection of durum wheat)).
`Case No. UNASSIGNED
`-5-
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`22525 Pacific Coast Highway
`
`CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
`
`Malibu, CA 90265
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-03460-DMR Document 1 Filed 06/11/22 Page 9 of 53
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Fettuccine,
`7.
`Fideo Cut Spaghetti,
`8.
`Gemelli,
`9.
`Jumbo Shells,
`10.
`Large Shells,
`11.
`Linguine,
`12.
`Linguine Fini,
`13.
`14. Manicotti,
`15. Medium Shells,
`16. Mezzi Rigatoni,
`17. Mini Farfalle,
`18. Mini Penne,
`19. Mini Wheels,
`20. Mostaccioli,
`Orzo,
`21.
`22.
`Pastina,
`23.
`Penne,
`24.
`Pipette,
`25.
`Rigatoni,
`26.
`Rotini,
`27.
`Spaghetti,
`28.
`Spaghetti Rigati,
`29.
`Thick Spaghetti,
`30.
`Thin Spaghetti,
`31.
`Tri-Color Penne,
`32.
`Tri-Color Rotini,
`33. Wavy Lasagne, and
`Ziti
`34.
`
`Case No. UNASSIGNED
`
`-6-
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`22525 Pacific Coast Highway
`
`CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
`
`Malibu, CA 90265
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-03460-DMR Document 1 Filed 06/11/22 Page 10 of 53
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`(see Exhibit 1-1 to 1-34 [Product Images for Barilla® Classic Blue Box]);
`(2) Barilla® Collezione Artisanal Pastas, including
`b.
`Bucatini,
`35.
`36.
`Casarecce,
`37.
`Orecchiette,
`38.
`Penne,
`39.
`Rigatoni, and
`40.
`Spaghetti
`(see Exhibit 1-35 to 1-40 [Product Images for Barilla® Collezione Artisanal]);
`(3) Barilla® Gluten Free Pastas, including
`c.
`Elbows,
`41.
`42.
`Fettuccine,
`43.
`Penne,
`44.
`Rotini, and
`45.
`Spaghetti
`(see Exhibit 1-41 to 1-45 [Product Images for Barilla® Gluten Free]);
`(4) Barilla® Veggie Pastas, including
`d.
`Rotini, and
`46.
`47.
`Spaghetti
`(see Exhibit 1-46 to 1-47 [Product Images for Barilla® Veggie]); and
`(5) Barilla® Whole Grain Pastas, including
`e.
`Elbows,
`48.
`49.
`Lasagne,
`50.
`Linguine,
`51.
`Penne,
`52.
`Rotini,
`53.
`Spaghetti, and
`54.
`Thin Spaghetti
`
`Case No. UNASSIGNED
`
`-7-
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`22525 Pacific Coast Highway
`
`CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
`
`Malibu, CA 90265
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-03460-DMR Document 1 Filed 06/11/22 Page 11 of 53
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`(see Exhibit 1-48 to 1-54 [Product Images for Barilla® Whole Grain]).
`Primary Dual Objectives. Plaintiffs bring this action individually and on behalf of
`5.
`those similarly situated to represent a National Class and a California Subclass of consumers who
`purchased the Products (defined infra) for dual primary objectives. Plaintiffs seek, on Plaintiffs’
`individual behalf and on behalf of the Class, a monetary recovery of the price premium consumers
`overpaid for the Products that comport with the Challenged Representation, as consistent with
`permissible law (including, for example, damages, restitution, disgorgement, and any applicable
`penalties/punitive damages solely to the extent that those causes of action permit). More
`importantly, Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief to stop Defendant’s unlawful marketing of the Products
`as originating from Italy to avoid or mitigate the risk of the deceiving the public into believing that
`the Products conform to the Challenged Representation, by requiring Defendant to change its
`unlawful advertising and/or labeling practices, for the benefit of consumers, including Plaintiffs and
`the Class.
`JURISDICTION
`II.
`This Court has original jurisdiction over this action pursuant to the Class Action
`6.
`Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), because the proposed Class consists of 100 or more
`members; the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, exclusive of costs and interest; and
`minimal diversity exists. This Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
`III. VENUE
`Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because a substantial part of
`7.
`the events and omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this District. In addition, one
`or more Plaintiffs purchased the unlawful Products in this District, and Defendant has marketed,
`advertised, and sold the Products within this District using the Challenged Representation.
`IV. PARTIES
`Plaintiffs
`A.
`Plaintiff Matthew Sinatro. The following is alleged based upon Plaintiff Sinatro’s
`8.
`personal knowledge: (1) Plaintiff Sinatro is a resident of San Francisco, California. (2) Plaintiff
`Case No. UNASSIGNED
`-8-
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`22525 Pacific Coast Highway
`
`CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
`
`Malibu, CA 90265
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-03460-DMR Document 1 Filed 06/11/22 Page 12 of 53
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Sinatro purchased a box of the Classic Barilla Blue Box Pasta (Angel Hair) (the “Sinatro
`Purchased Product”) for approximately $2.00 at a grocery store in or around the City of San
`Francisco, State of California, in or around the winter of 2021 (see, Exhibit 1-1 [Exemplar Product
`Image]). (3) In making the purchase, the Challenged Representation on the Product’s label led
`Plaintiff Sinatro to believe that the Product was made in Italy—to wit, the Products’ ingredients are
`from Italy and the Products are manufactured in Italy. (4) At the time of purchase, Plaintiff Sinatro
`did not know that the aforementioned Challenged Representation was false—i.e., that the Product
`was not made in Italy (to wit, the Product’s ingredients are not from Italy and the Product is not
`manufactured in Italy). (5) Plaintiff Sinatro would not have purchased the Product, or would not
`have overpaid a premium for the Product’s purported Italian origin, had he known that the
`Challenged Representation was false. (6) Plaintiff Sinatro continues to see the Products available
`for purchase and desires to purchase the Sinatro Purchased Product again if the Challenged
`Representation was in fact true—i.e., the Product was made in Italy (to wit, the Product’s ingredients
`are from Italy and the Product is manufactured in Italy). (7) Plaintiff Sinatro is not personally
`familiar with the location from which the Products’ ingredients are sourced or the location where
`the Products are manufactured as he does not possess any personal knowledge regarding where the
`Products are made; and, therefore, Plaintiff Sinatro has no way of determining whether the
`Challenged Representation on the Products is true. (8) Plaintiff Sinatro is, and continues to be,
`unable to rely on the truth of the Challenged Representation on the Products’ labels.
`Plaintiff Jessica Prost. The following is alleged based upon Plaintiff Prost’s personal
`9.
`knowledge: (1) Plaintiff Prost is a resident of Los Angeles, California. (2) Plaintiff Prost purchased
`two boxes of the Classic Barilla Blue Box Pasta (Spaghetti) (the “Prost Purchased Products”) for
`approximately $2.00 per box at a grocery store in or around the City of Los Angeles, State of
`California, in or around the fall of 2021 (see, Exhibit 1-28 [Exemplar Product Image]). (3) In
`making the purchase, the Challenged Representation on the Product’s label led Plaintiff Prost to
`believe that the Product was made in Italy—to wit, the Products’ ingredients are from Italy and the
`Products are manufactured in Italy. (4) At the time of purchase, Plaintiff Prost did not know that the
`aforementioned Challenged Representation was false—i.e., that the Product was not made in Italy
`Case No. UNASSIGNED
`-9-
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`22525 Pacific Coast Highway
`
`CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
`
`Malibu, CA 90265
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-03460-DMR Document 1 Filed 06/11/22 Page 13 of 53
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`(to wit, the Product’s ingredients are not from Italy and the Product is not manufactured in Italy).
`(5) Plaintiff Prost would not have purchased the Product, or would not have overpaid a premium for
`the Product’s purported Italian origin, had she known that the Challenged Representation was false.
`(6) Plaintiff Prost continues to see the Products available for purchase and desires to purchase the
`Prost Purchased Product again if the Challenged Representation was in fact true—i.e., the Product
`was made in Italy (to wit, the Product’s ingredients are from Italy and the Product is manufactured
`in Italy). (7) Plaintiff Prost is not personally familiar with the location from which the Products’
`ingredients are sourced or the location where the Products are manufactured as she does not possess
`any personal knowledge regarding where the Products are made; and, therefore, Plaintiff Prost has
`no way of determining whether the Challenged Representation on the Products is true. (8) Plaintiff
`Prost is, and continues to be, unable to rely on the truth of the Challenged Representation on the
`Products’ labels.
`10. Plaintiffs’ Future Harm. Plaintiffs would continue to purchase the Products in the
`future, as Defendant continues to advertise and warrant them, if the Products lived up to and
`conformed with the Challenged Representation. Further, Plaintiffs are average consumers
`who are not sophisticated in, for example, where ingredients are sourced or the location where
`different products are made, similar to and including the Products. Indeed, Plaintiffs do not have
`any personal knowledge of the sourcing of ingredients or manufacture of the Products. Since
`Plaintiffs would like to purchase the Products again to obtain the benefits of the Challenged
`Representation that Defendants continues to use—despite the fact that the Products were once
`marred by false advertising or warranties—Plaintiffs would likely and reasonably, but incorrectly,
`assume the Products are true to and conform with the Challenged Representation on their labels,
`packaging, and Defendant’s advertisements, including Defendant’s websites and social media
`platforms. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are at
`risk of
`reasonably, but
`incorrectly, assuming
`that Defendant has fixed the Products such that Plaintiffs may buy them again, believing they are
`no longer falsely advertised and warranted. In this regard, Plaintiffs are currently and in the future
`deprived of the ability to rely on the Challenged Representations to purchase the Products.
`Defendant
`B.
`Case No. UNASSIGNED
`
`-10-
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`22525 Pacific Coast Highway
`
`CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
`
`Malibu, CA 90265
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-03460-DMR Document 1 Filed 06/11/22 Page 14 of 53
`
`
`
`Defendant Barilla America, Inc. (“Defendant” or “BAI”) is a corporation
`11.
`headquartered and/or maintaining a principal place of business in the State of Illinois. Defendant
`was doing business in the State of California at all relevant times, including the Class Period.
`Directly and through its agents, Defendant has substantial contacts with and receives substantial
`benefits and income from and through the State of California as approximately ten percent (10%)
`of its United States sales come from California consumers who purchase the Products in California.
`Defendant is one of the owners, manufacturers, marketers, and/or distributors of the Products, and
`is one of the companies that created, authorized, and controlled the use of the copyrighted
`Challenged Representation to market the Products. Defendant and its agents promoted, marketed,
`and sold the Products at issue throughout the United States and, in particular, within this judicial
`district. The unfair, unlawful, deceptive, and misleading Challenged Representations on the
`Products were prepared, authorized, ratified, and/or approved by Defendant and its agents, and were
`disseminated throughout California and the nation by Defendant and its agents to deceive and
`mislead consumers in the State of California and the United States into purchasing the Products.
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`V.
`Consumer Demand for Authentic Italian-Made Pastas
`A.
`12. Background – Italian Products. Generally, Country of Origin claims have “a
`considerable influence on [consumers regarding] the quality perception of a product.”2 Relevant
`here, authentic Italian products, including pastas, hold a certain prestige and generally viewed as a
`higher quality product.3 Products “Made in Italy” are “based on creativity [and] matched with
`quality and design.”4 Indeed, the “Made in Italy” claim has evolved into a brand that distinguishes
`Italian products from other products, specifically in fashion, food, furniture, and mechanical
`
`
`2 Flavia Bonaiuto, et. al., Italian Food? Sounds Good! Made in Italy and Italian Sounding Effects
`on Food Products’ Assessment by Consumers, Front. Psychol. (Mar. 3, 2021),
`https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.581492/full#B62 (accessed June 10,
`2022); Warren J. Bilkey and Erik Nes, Country-of-origin effects on product evaluations, J. Int.
`Business Studies 8, 89–99 (1962) doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490539 (accessed June 10, 2022).
`3 See MADE IN ITALY, Made in Italy, https://madeinitaly.org/en/made-in-italy/made-in-italy.php
`(accessed June 10, 2022).
`4 Id.
`Case No. UNASSIGNED
`
`-11-
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`22525 Pacific Coast Highway
`
`CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
`
`Malibu, CA 90265
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-03460-DMR Document 1 Filed 06/11/22 Page 15 of 53
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`engineering.5 “Italian-Made” branding is often associated with superior quality, extreme attention
`to detail, elegance, and a long established tradition in manufacturing.6 Notably, the general
`“Italianness” of a product influences consumers overall evaluation of a product.7 Consumers seek
`out products that look or sound like they are from Italy because Italian products have a better
`reputation, and, as such, consumers willingly pay more for Italian sounding and/or looking
`products.8 Thus, Manufacturers use “Italian Sounding” descriptors—e.g., Italian-sounding names,
`images, shapes, and places of production typically associated with Italy—and use “[c]olors evoking
`the Italian flag and images of famous Italian landscapes or monuments—e.g., the gulf of Naples,
`the tower of Pisa—reproduced on the label and packaging” to mislead consumers into believing that
`products are manufactured and/or made in Italy.9 This is done to exploit a product’s purported Italian
`origin to drive sales and increase the perceived monetary value of the product, reaping the benefits
`of selling a premium product without incurring the costs to make it.10
`13. Background—Italian Pasta. “The food industry is the second most important sector
`of [the] Italian economy” and Italy is the 10th greatest exporter of food worldwide.11 Pasta is and
`has been an integral part of Italian culture since the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries.12 Today,
`Italy produces 3.5 million tons of pasta per year, making the country the world’s top pasta
`producer.13 Pursuant to Italian standards and law, dry “made in Italy” pasta is generally made from
`the drawing, rolling, and drying of dough prepared exclusively with durum wheat or semolina and
`
`
`
`5 Id.
`6 Id.
`7 Flavia Bonaiuto, et. al., Italian Food? Sounds Good! Made in Italy and Italian Sounding Effects
`on Food Products’ Assessment by Consumers, Front. Psychol. (Mar. 3, 2021),
`https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.581492/full#B62 (accessed June 10,
`2022).
`8 Id.
`9 Id.
`10 Id.
`11 Id.
`12 Timothy Santonastaso, A Brief History of Pasta, Italics Magazine (May 29, 2020),
`https://italicsmag.com/2020/05/29/a-brief-history-of-pasta/ (accessed June 8, 2022).
`13 INT’L PASTA ORGANISATION, World Consumption Boom Since the Lockdown Started 1 Consumer
`in 6 Months
`(Oct. 16, 2020),
`Out of 4 Ate More, 25% Export
`Increase
`https://internationalpasta.org/news/pasta-world-consumption-boom-since-the-lockdown-started-1-
`consumer-out-of-4-ate-more-25-export-increase-in-6-months/ (accessed June 8, 2022).
`Case No. UNASSIGNED
`-12-
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`22525 Pacific Coast Highway
`
`CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
`
`Malibu, CA 90265
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-03460-DMR Document 1 Filed 06/11/22 Page 16 of 53
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`water.14 Indeed, Italian pasta is one of the best and most sought after products in the global market.15
`Italian durum wheat is among some of the “best varieties and characterized by an elevated protein
`content, an high gluten quality, a golden yellow color and a low content of ashes. Exhibit 4e [Barilla
`Group We Use Only Webpage]. However, Italy’s production of local durum wheat cannot meet
`worldwide demands and in the past fifteen years, production of Italian durum wheat far exceeds the
`export of pastas.16 Since the demand for Italian durum wheat is exponentially high, it is sold at
`premium.17 Thus, in response to consumers’ desire for authentic Italian pastas, many companies,
`including Defendant, have scrambled to manufacture, market, and sell purportedly authentic
`‘Italian-made’ pastas, using durum wheat that is not sourced in Italy, in an effort to gain market
`share and increase sales.
`14. Defendant’s History and Origin of United States Barilla® Brand Products.
`Defendant started as a bread and pasta shop in 1877 in Parma, Italy. Exhibit 4c [Barilla Group
`History of the Company Webpages]. In 1999, the first of Defendant’s United States plants opened
`in Ames, Iowa, and in 2008 Defendant opened a second plant in Avon, New York. Id. All Barilla®
`brand Products that are sold in the United States, with the exception of the Barilla® Tortellini and
`the Barilla® Oven Ready Lasagna (not at issue in this case), are made in United States plants, and
`not in Italy. Exhibit 3f [FAQ—Company Related (Q3)]. Ingredients for Barilla® pastas are not all
`sourced in Italy. Id. Therefore, the overwhelming majority of Barilla® pastas sold in the United
`States, including all of the Products at issue here, are not of made in Italy—be it the sourcing of
`ingredients (like durum wheat) or the manufacturing of the Products, despite Defendant’s labeling
`and advertising of the Products with the Challenged Representation. Defendant admits that it uses
`wheat from around the world and does not exclusively use the preeminent Italian durum wheat,
`despite its commitment in 2019 to use Italian durum wheat for certain classic pasta formats so long
`as they are sold in Italy and not the United States. Exhibit 4e [Barilla Group We Use Only
`
`
`14 See MADE IN ITALY, Pasta Made in Italy, http://pasta.madeinitaly.org/ (accessed June 9, 2022).
`15 Luca Fazio, The pasta is ‘made in Italy.’ The wheat isn’t, il manifesto (Nov. 24, 2017),
`https://global.ilmanifesto.it/the-pasta-is-made-in-italy-the-wheat-isnt/ (accessed June 10, 2022).
`16 Id.
`17 Id.
`Case No. UNASSIGNED
`
`-13-
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`22525 Pacific Coast Highway
`
`CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
`
`Malibu, CA 90265
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-03460-DMR Document 1 Filed 06/11/22 Page 17 of 53
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Webpage].
`15. FTC Guidelines. Manufacturers and marketers use country of origin claims to help
`distinguish their products over other products, knowing consumers rely on the accuracy of those
`claims in making their purchasing decisions. Thus, accurate label representations as to the source
`of the products are extremely important. The United States Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”)
`created standards regarding the “Made in USA” claim to help companies avoid making misleading
`and deceptive claims.18 If a product is advertised as “Made in USA,” then “all or virtually all” of
`the product must be made in the United States.19 Specifically, the FTC stated:
`
`
`In connection with promoting or offering for sale any good or service, . . . it is an unfair
`or deceptive act or practice . . . to label any product as Made in the United States unless
`the final assembly or processing of the product occurs in the United States, all
`significant processing that goes into the product occurs in the United States, and all or
`virtually all ingredients or components of the product are made and sourced in the
`United States.
`16 C.F.R. § 323.2. Here, Defendant disregarded FTC guidelines governing “Made in USA” claims,
`analogous to the Challenged Representation in this case, opting to manufacture the Products outside
`of Italy, using ingredients that are not sourced from Italy (such as the main ingredient wheat durum),
`certainly failing to satisfy the “all or virtually all” standard that requires both the Products’
`ingredients and manufacture to originate from the claimed country of origin.
`Defendant’s Brand Strategy and Long-Standing Marketing Campaign
`B.
`16. Brand Strategy/Marketing Campaign. Defendant deliberately designed and
`executed a decades long marketing campaign to identify the Barilla® brand, company, and Products
`at issue in this case, as authentic, genuine Italian pastas—made from ingredients sources in Italy
`(like durum wheat), and manufactured in Italy. Not only does Defendant label the Products’
`packaging with the Challenged Representation—Italy’s #1 Brand of Pasta, but Defenda