A new putative class action filed in the Northern District of California takes aim at Cento Fine Foods, Inc. and its popular “San Marzano” canned tomatoes. The complaint, brought by California consumers Mike Andrich and Natalie Gianne, alleges that Cento misled shoppers by marketing certain canned tomato products as premium, authentically certified San Marzano tomatoes when they allegedly do not meet the standards of the Italian body that regulates that designation. At this stage, the allegations are unproven, and Cento will have the opportunity to respond in court.
According to the complaint, San Marzano tomatoes occupy a special place in the culinary world and are associated with a premium price because of their reputation for flavor, texture, and quality. The complaint explains that genuine San Marzano tomatoes grown in the Agro Sarnese-Nocerino area near Naples are protected by the European Union’s Protected Designation of Origin regime, commonly referred to as DOP or PDO, which limits use of the name to tomatoes grown, harvested, and processed under strict geographic and quality standards. It further alleges that authentic DOP San Marzano tomatoes are known for their elongated shape, firm flesh, fewer seeds, thin skin, and a balanced sweet-acidic flavor profile that works especially well in sauces.
The dispute centers on Cento’s “Cento San Marzano Certified Peeled Tomatoes” and “Cento San Marzano Organic Certified Peeled Tomatoes.” Plaintiffs allege that these products are not authentic, DOP-certified San Marzano tomatoes despite prominent “San Marzano” and “Certified” claims on the front label and marketing materials that invoke the same qualities associated with consortium-certified tomatoes. The complaint alleges that Cento was once part of the Consorzio di Tutela del Pomodoro San Marzano dell’Agro Sarnese-Nocerino, the entity identified in the filing as the official consortium overseeing DOP San Marzano tomatoes, but was removed around 2011 after an Italian investigation involving alleged misuse of DOP labeling by individuals tied to Cento’s Italian operations.
The complaint also focuses on the evolution of Cento’s labeling. It alleges that an earlier Cento label expressly referenced the DOP seal and described the tomatoes as authentic San Marzano tomatoes, while the current label instead states that the tomatoes are certified by an independent third-party agency that supposedly verifies seed varietals and growing locations. That agency, identified in the complaint as Agri-Cert, is alleged not to be the official consortium and not to possess authority to certify San Marzano tomatoes in the same way as the consortium. Plaintiffs contend that this distinction matters because reasonable consumers may understand “certified” on the label to mean officially certified San Marzano tomatoes rather than tomatoes approved under a different private standard.
In addition to the label itself, the complaint challenges Cento’s website and online product marketing. It cites statements describing the product as “San Marzano Certified,” “America’s Favorite San Marzano Tomato,” and a product grown and produced in the Sarnese Nocerino area under rigorous certification stages intended to ensure premium quality and authenticity. Plaintiffs allege that these statements reinforce the impression that Cento’s tomatoes are the equivalent of official DOP San Marzano tomatoes certified by the Italian consortium, when they allegedly are not.
Shelf placement is another part of the theory. The complaint includes images showing Cento products displayed alongside competitor brands that bear DOP markings and language expressly identifying the tomatoes as “San Marzano Tomato of Agro Sarnese-Nocerino Area.” Plaintiffs allege that, when products are placed side by side with similar visual branding and references to San Marzano origin and quality, consumers can be misled into believing the products are equivalent even if only some carry the official designation.
The complaint further references a 2022 investigation by Italian public broadcaster RAI 3 into the U.S. market for San Marzano tomatoes. According to the pleading, that reporting concluded that many brands marketed as “San Marzano” in the United States would be illegal to sell in Europe because they do not comply with DOP rules, and it identified Cento as a major offender because its tomatoes, while allegedly grown in Italy, were not DOP-certified San Marzano tomatoes.
On the legal side, plaintiffs assert claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of people who purchased Cento San Marzano products for personal or household use from January 1, 2016 to the present. The complaint alleges that Cento’s conduct was unlawful, fraudulent, and unfair under California’s UCL and also violated the CLRA by representing that the goods had characteristics, standards, and certification they did not have.
Plaintiffs allege that they repeatedly purchased the products in reliance on the “San Marzano Certified” branding, product packaging, and online marketing statements. They claim they would not have bought the products, or would have paid less, had they known the tomatoes were not authentic DOP-certified San Marzano tomatoes and allegedly lacked the qualities associated with that designation. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, corrective advertising, restitution, disgorgement, damages, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees.
From a broader compliance perspective, the lawsuit highlights the risk that comes with using premium geographic and certification-based descriptors in food labeling. When a product is marketed using terms closely associated with a protected designation, or when private certifications are presented in a way that may be confused with official designations, companies can face significant false advertising and consumer protection exposure. The case also serves as a reminder that online marketing statements on brand websites and retail platforms can become part of the same alleged deception theory as the package label itself.
Whether the plaintiffs can prove these allegations remains to be seen. Cento may challenge the complaint on factual grounds, legal grounds, or both, and class certification is far from automatic. Even so, the filing offers a useful example of how origin claims, quality signals, and certification language can become the center of high-stakes consumer litigation.
