California consumers accuse popular Italian food brand of tomato fraud

"California consumers are suing Cento Fine Foods, alleging the company falsely labels its products as containing San Marzano tomatoes, a premium Italian variety with protected status requiring specific consortium certification."

"The complaint alleged that the company is falsely branding its tomato products because they lack the proper certification required to use the name. "They lack the taste, consistency, and other physical characteristics associated by consumers with certified San Marzano Tomatoes," the lawsuit states."

"The plaintiffs in the California suit claim they were misled by deceptive labeling when purchasing the product more than a dozen times in California stores. The lawsuit seeks class-action certification and asks the judge to award more than $25 million to customers."

"Cento, which has won in a similar case in New York, says its tomatoes are from the right region though they do not have the same Italian government certification. Cento argues its tomatoes are grown in Italy's Campania region using proper techniques and are certified by an independent third-party agency, though it lost its original consortium certification in the 2010s."

California consumers sue Cento Fine Foods for allegedly labeling products as containing San Marzano tomatoes, a premium variety tied to Italy’s Campania region and protected status requiring specific consortium certification. The plaintiffs claim the company’s products lack the certification needed to use the name and therefore do not match consumer expectations for taste, consistency, and physical characteristics. The lawsuit alleges consumers were misled after purchasing the products more than a dozen times in California stores. The suit seeks class-action certification and more than $25 million in damages. Cento argues its tomatoes are grown in Campania using proper techniques and are certified by an independent third-party agency, though it lost consortium certification in the 2010s. A similar New York case was dismissed after a judge ruled consortium certification was not required for equivalent products.

Read at Los Angeles Times