Milan prosecutor’s office focuses on Ferragni’s contract with Oreo after announcement of cookies with false charitable purposes

It’s official now. The Milan prosecutor’s office tries to clarify what has become known as the ‘Oreo case’ Serious fraud investigation against Chiara Ferragni, His close associates Fabio D’Amato, Alessandra Balocco and Franco Canillo from Dolce Preziosi. Just a few weeks ago they fined the influencer a million dollars for selling Pandoro in collaboration with the Balocco brand for false charitable purposes. Now, suspicions have grown over another charitable initiative advertised on the social network. And in 2020, the influencer promoted a special edition Oreo Cookies

Saying that the proceeds from the sale will go to charity in the fight against Covid.

On this 21st February, members of GDF Economic and Financial Police They went to Mondelez Italia headquarters in Milan with orders to hand over the documents. This company owns the brand of famous Oreo cookies. They also visited the headquarters of Cerelitalia, owner of the Dolce Preziosi brand, in the province of Bari and Tarcento in the province of Udine, where the Trudi company is based.

The actions of this 21 February aim, among other things, to collect contracts and emails exchanged by the “architects” of the various initiatives, with a view to the possible attendance of witnesses and the interrogation of suspects. I do to explain the whole matter

Which, by the way, can go even further.

As Mondelez Italia previously reported (unrelated to the investigation), the “collaboration agreement between Oreo and Chiara Ferragni” means that the influencer “designed a limited edition packaging for Oreo Double”, which was widely distributed. The retail sector was sold. At the same price as the standard product. At the same time, a “capsule collection” of Chiara Ferragni clothing was created under the Oreo brand, part of which was associated with the “Unleash Your Oreo Style” contest and therefore not for sale.

However, the other portion was sold ‘directly’ by the influencer. In all this “there was never any act of charity” by the food company. Therefore, according to the company, advertising it in this form was an autonomous decision of the influencer and was outside the commercial agreement.