Well, I guess we have to listen, don't we? Here is his big selling album, Islands:
The first tune, I Giorni, which means "the days" is nearly seven minutes long and I didn't feel a burning need to listen any further. I think that Einaudi's music is the perfect analogue to the paintings of Thomas Kinkaid:
This is actually the perfect occasion to demonstrate an aesthetic principle. What do you think that might be? What is the fundamental difference between Einaudi and Kinkaid and, for example, these two artworks:
(Yes, I know I just posted this piece, but it is an excellent example for my purposes.)
The examples by Einaudi and Kinkaid are, above all, soothing, are they not? Pretty and soothing. So what's wrong with that? It's a bit complicated, sure, but the main problem is that something purporting to be an artwork has to be more than soothing. It may have soothing elements or sections, as the piano piece does at the beginning with those two chords. But if it never gets beyond soothing, if there is nothing that contrasts with soothing, then it is not an artwork, it is simply wallpaper. Art must contain tensions. There has to be some elements that challenge us. Art is not supposed to have the same effect as a good tranquilizer.
Incidentally, this is why art requires leisure to exist. If your existence is one of constantly being harried from one demand to another, it is doubtful if you will be able to engage with and appreciate much art. What you really need is just to be soothed. Which probably explains the success of Einaudi and Kinkaid. A lot of people lead very harried lives!
But if you have some leisure time, a curious mind and some sensitivity to aesthetics, then what you really want to have a look at is the real thing. Actual Art. Which is not pretty, nor soothing. At least, not mostly.
So the problem here is really mis-categorization on the part of iTunes. Einaudi is not a classical composer. He is new age, easy listening, which should be a separate category.