Barilla buyers sue because pasta made in U.S.

Two boxes of $2 pasta have led to a possible classaction lawsuit that could cost Barilla millions of dollars, according to legal experts.

A pair of pasta-purchasers, Matthew Sinatro and Jessica Prost, sued the company because they believed the pasta was made in Italy. The boxes are branded with “Italy’s #1 Brand of Pasta” and logos displaying the colors of the Italian flag. But the pasta is made in Iowa and New York.

Sinatro and Prost claim they would not have purchased the pasta if they knew it wasn’t made in Italy, which is valued not only for creating pasta but also for having the high-protein durum wheat needed to make a quality product.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Donna Ryu ruled Monday that the case has enough merit to continue. “Their allegations are sufficient to establish an economic injury for purposes of constitutional standing,” Ryu wrote.

Barilla is based in Illinois but began as a shop that sold bread and pasta in Parma, Italy. The plants in Iowa and New York use ingredients sourced from countries other than Italy, according to court filings.

Neither Barilla nor the California law firm that filed the suit immediately responded to The Washington Post’s requests for comment.

Many modern consumers assume they are being misled or manipulated by corporations, according to some law professors who study false advertising.

Rebecca Tushnet, a professor at Harvard Law School, said people feel duped when they pay a price premium for what they consider a special product, such as chocolate from Switzerland.

She said consumers have been steadily filing falseadvertising suits against companies selling products in grocery stores because it is one of the last forums in society that isn’t bogged down by legal forms or contracts where consumers sign away their rights to sue. So, she said, this pent-up frustration at being manipulated by companies is expressed in your local Aisle 5.

She said she understands that some people find these suits silly because they hardly expect to buy something made 6,000 miles away for $2. “Some of it is a matter of common sense,” Tushnet said.

But how does one quantify common sense when millions of dollars are on the line?

Tushnet said there has been an uptick in the past five or so years of plaintiffs and defendants in falseadvertising cases conducting public surveys that speak to the issues of the case.

Megan Bannigan, a partner at Debevoise & Plimpton who has tried intellectual property cases, said surveying has come a long way and is a useful tool in falseadvertising issues.

She said it has become much cheaper and more efficient to run online surveys, but those can still cost between $20,000 and $100,000. But that’s only a fraction in these kinds of cases, which can take millions of dollars to figure out.

Bannigan said she could see either or both sides of the Barilla suit conducting surveys because there does seem to be a legitimate legal issue.

“I don’t see the claim as mere puffery,” she said.