No, I read part of the full sentence in italian and as far as I can understand, the tribunal contests not the fact (increasing prices), but the way that it was done which is unlawful. They also contest other things, for example, you have to say the legal words "modifica unilaterale del contratto" when changing the contract, which makes it clear you're getting screwed one way or another by the way. In this case Netflix wrote to the users "updating plan price" which is much more ambiguous and not as clear as the above saying. It is ridiculous to not know about this, because everybody here knows they're the keywords you read when somebody is raising the price of some service. Let alone a poor big tech that couldn't know they had to specify the legal phrasing.

For similar reasons, many more points of the consumer association were rejected, because Netflix in those cases fulfilled the requirements of the consumer protection code in its tos

Technicality matters, that how laws work.

And the issue in this article has nothing to do with Meta/Youtube trial in the US, which are about completely different laws under different legal systems.