I won't go as far and say this is a corporate spin on an important legal case (like what McDonalds did with the Hot Coffee verdict). But the judgement is correct (also, as always in the US, the damages look redicoulus).

The important fact, that the article just mentions on the sideline, is that Nutella is marketed as a healthy food suitable for kids. I don't know the US ads, but Ferrero is notoriusly using a "it's healthy" message for all of their candies here in Germany. And those are also targeted at children. That isn't correct and only borderline legal.

Ferrero is now using articles, and sheep like us, to convey the "doh, of course Nutella isn't healthy" message to paint the woman who did the case as an idiot. While in fact, that woman was brave enough to go to the courts and make a change. This hopefully leads to marketing less effective in influencing simple minded people like kids.

This is one of the few important consumer protection cases that actually worked in the US. And now everybody is dancing to ferreros fiddle in marking the woman as stupid and creedy.

We don't know how much Nutella she was giving her kid. Maybe four slices of bread to breakfast. That certainly doesn't look like much, but it is way to much for a kid. Damages in the US are often "punative damages", therefore the point of the high sum wasn't to make the woman rich, but make Ferrero hurt. And this is peanuts considering what Ferrero is costing the US healthcare system.