## Facts

- Charles Farinella purchased approximately 1.6 million bottles of Henri’s salad dressing that bore “best when purchased by” dates ranging from January to June 2003.
- Before reselling the bottles to discount retailers, Farinella covered the original dates and applied new labels listing “best when purchased by” dates in May or July 2004.
- The prosecution repeatedly characterized the original “best when purchased by” dates as “expiration dates” and argued the dressing was “old” and “expired,” suggesting it would be unsafe or rancid.
- Evidence at trial did not show the dressing was unsafe, spoiled, or materially degraded when sold; there were no consumer complaints or scientific testing establishing spoilage.
- A supplier had provided a freshness guarantee extending up to 180 days beyond the original “best when purchased by” dates.
- The government presented testimony from an FDA employee about labeling requirements; Farinella also made a false claim that he had checked with the FDA about the relabeling.
- A jury convicted Farinella of (1) misbranding a food introduced into interstate commerce with intent to defraud or mislead and (2) wire fraud; the district court imposed probation, home confinement, a fine, and forfeiture.
- Farinella appealed the convictions; the government cross-appealed, arguing the sentence was too lenient, and represented that the wire-fraud count was based on the misbranding theory.

## Issues

1. Whether changing “best when purchased by” dates, without proof of falsity or consumer deception, rendered the food “misbranded” because its labeling was “false or misleading in any particular.”
2. Whether the evidence, including the FDA-related testimony and the government’s trial presentation, was sufficient and admissible to support the misbranding conviction.
3. Whether the wire-fraud conviction could stand if the misbranding conviction failed, given the government’s position that misbranding was the basis for wire fraud.
4. Whether the government’s sentencing cross-appeal remained justiciable if the convictions were reversed.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit reversed both convictions and remanded with instructions to enter judgments of acquittal on all counts.
- The court held the government failed to present sufficient evidence that the altered “best when purchased by” dates were false or misleading to consumers within the meaning of the misbranding statute.
- Because the wire-fraud count was conceded to rest on the misbranding theory, the wire-fraud conviction fell with the misbranding conviction.
- The government’s cross-appeal challenging the sentence was dismissed as moot.

## Legal Principles

- A misbranding conviction based on labeling requires proof that the labeling was “false or misleading in any particular,” not merely that a date was changed.
- “Best when purchased by” dates are not treated as equivalent to “expiration” or “unsafe after” dates; the government must prove what the label conveys to reasonable consumers and how the challenged label is materially misleading.
- When the government offers no evidence of product unsafety, spoilage, meaningful quality degradation, or consumer understanding supporting deception, the evidence may be insufficient as a matter of law.
- When a conviction is reversed for insufficient evidence, the proper remedy is judgment of acquittal rather than a new trial.
- If one count is expressly predicated on another and the predicate count fails, the dependent count cannot stand.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit ordered acquittal because the government did not prove that relabeling “best when purchased by” dates was false or misleading under the misbranding statute, and the wire-fraud conviction necessarily failed once misbranding failed, rendering the sentencing cross-appeal moot.


United States v. Farinella, 558 F.3d 695 (7th Cir. 2009)