Always him: Fedez is at the center of controversy for covert advertising in the music video of his summer song “Mille“. The brand in question is Coca Cola and there are also in the eye of the storm Orietta Berti and the rapper Achille Lauro, involved in the musical project even if not directly responsible because they are not owners of the song as the husband of Chiara Ferragni.
The three singers are now on everyone’s lips but not for the usual gossip or for some musical success. This is an economic scandal that probably won’t deflate as easily as any other minor gossip.
In this specific case, in the clips shot by the Fedez troupe they would be present products with promotional purposes not explicitly stated as it is a legal obligation to do.
The case has now been taken over by theAntitrust and in case of conviction the sum to be paid would be equal to well 5 million euros. To break the news is the Codacons.
Why is the news not surprising?
The complaint in question was made by Codacons, a body that we can now define as a follower of the rapper’s misfortunes due to the long list of measures it has initiated against him.
It has been repeatedly observed, from sources external to the debates, that the body seeks visibility and does so by systematically attacking the same public figure to undermine its credibility and win at least a few lawsuits.
On the part of the singer, in fact, no reply for now. In the past, however, each attack was commented by Fedez himself on his social networks, an action that gave ample resonance to the fact rather than exonerating his figure.
After so many episodes of what he himself once called “an unjust persecution“, Perhaps now he will let the lawyers speak, aiming to demonstrate his possible innocence on a legal level rather than through complaints and monologues in the stories.
There have not even been official denials from Berti and Lauro, notoriously more reserved also because they are never at the center of controversy of this kind.
What are the risks of covert advertising
Such a complaint is not a trivial matter.
The penalties in this case are real and consistent also because the risks for the consumer related to advertising, online and offline, are many and too often the value of transparency is trampled on.
When we talk about hidden advertising, in fact, we are referring to a question of professional ethics that does not only bring up moral issues but also calls to itself the heavy consequences on an economic level, as demonstrated by the 5 million required in case of conviction.
To intervene in the matter is precisely the Codacons that is keen to point out that at the center of the story there is no song lyrics, although on a literal level it refers several times to the well-known drink, but rather the exposure of the brand of the soft drink. Coca Cola would not be denounced as a full sponsor.
The choice of the terms of the verses instead “it is part of the freedom of artistic expression“While for the frames”viewers must also be adequately informed in music videos about the insertion of brands for commercial purposes”.