EU Court ruling: Google may be liable for videos advertising gambling
The Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled on the dividing line between passive hosting and the active involvement of digital platforms. Google may lose its liability exemption when, as part of a commercial partnership with a creator, it carries out a substantive review of the channel and the content intended for monetisation. A digital platform cannot automatically rely on its status as an intermediary when its relationship with the person publishing the content goes beyond the mere technical storage of information. A commercial partnership, combined with a review of the channel, its videos and the associated metadata, may cause it to lose the protection granted to hosting providers.
This is the principle established today, 16 July 2026, by the Second Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-421/24, arising from the dispute between Google Ireland and the Italian Communications Regulatory Authority, AGCOM, over the application of Italy’s ban on advertising gambling activities involving monetary winnings. The judgment had been listed in the Court’s judicial calendar for this morning. The judges in Luxembourg did not rule directly on the validity of the fine imposed on Google. Instead, they provided Italy’s Council of State with the interpretation of EU law required to resolve the proceedings still pending in Italy.
AGCOM’s fine against Google Ireland
The case stems from Resolution 275/22/CONS, adopted by AGCOM on 19 July 2022 and published on 4 August of that year. Through that measure, the regulator found that Google Ireland had breached Article 9 of the Dignity Decree, the provision that prohibits in Italy any form of direct or indirect advertising for games and betting activities offering monetary winnings. The administrative fine totalled €750,000. The proceedings concerned several YouTube channels linked to the same content creator, on which hundreds of videos regarded as promoting online gambling websites had been published.
According to the facts underlying the proceedings, the content showed gambling sessions involving real money and included references to bonuses, platforms and websites accessible to users. AGCOM also ordered the removal of the remaining videos and the cessation of the conduct in question. The resolution held Google responsible for the distribution of the content on YouTube. The company challenged the measure, arguing that it had provided a hosting service and could not be treated the same as the authors of videos uploaded independently to the platform.
The e-Commerce Directive also applies to gambling videos
The first issue considered by the Court concerned the scope of Directive 2000/31/EC on electronic commerce. The legislation excludes gambling activities involving a monetary stake from its scope. Google nevertheless argued that it had not directly offered games or betting services but had merely hosted videos produced by third parties.
The Court clarified that an information society service consisting of the online hosting of videos continues to fall within the scope of the directive, even when some of the stored content includes gambling advertising. The exclusion relating to gambling therefore applies to the gambling activity itself. It does not automatically remove a platform that stores user-uploaded videos and makes them available from the scope of European e-commerce rules.
This clarification prevents an overly broad interpretation: the mere presence of gambling-related content does not make the platform operator the provider of the promoted service. Determining whether Google can benefit from the liability exemption requires an examination of the role it actually played in relation to the disputed content.
Google and gambling advertising: when the exemption no longer applies
The central part of the judgment concerns Article 14 of the e-Commerce Directive. The provision limits the liability of a hosting provider when its activity is merely technical, automatic and passive, and the provider has no actual knowledge of the unlawful nature of the information stored. In the case before the Court, the content creator had joined the YouTube Partner Programme. The arrangement provided for the monetisation of videos and the sharing of revenue generated by advertisements displayed on the channel.
The mere existence of a commercial partnership, however, is not enough to make Google automatically liable for every piece of content published by the creator. The decisive question is different: what level of control did the platform exercise when admitting the channel to the programme or maintaining the partnership? According to the Court, the exemption cannot be relied upon when, during the conclusion or performance of the commercial partnership, the platform operator has reviewed the channel’s content by examining factors such as its main subject matter, its most-viewed or most-recent videos, and the associated metadata.
The information reviewed may include titles, descriptions, thumbnails, and other details that can reveal the channel’s nature. The assessment process required under the partnership programme, therefore, becomes relevant because it may allow the platform to acquire specific knowledge of the content through which advertising revenue is generated and shared.
Monetisation does not automatically create liability
The ruling does not establish an automatic equation between monetisation and liability. A platform may continue to provide advertising tools to its users without necessarily being considered the author or publisher of all the content it hosts. What changes the assessment is the level of involvement. When the operator reviews a channel to determine its commercial suitability, identifies its dominant subject matter and examines the videos attracting the largest share of its audience, it becomes more difficult to argue that the platform’s activity remained entirely neutral.
The economic relationship, therefore, becomes relevant when accompanied by substantive control. The sharing of advertising revenue demonstrates a common commercial interest, while a review of the channel may affect whether the platform can still be regarded as a merely passive intermediary. The Court focused on how the service operates in practice, rather than on the contractual label applied to it. Formally qualifying as a hosting provider is not sufficient to secure the exemption when the activities actually carried out reveal involvement in the selection, assessment or commercial management of content.
The EU Court has not upheld the fine
Today’s judgment does not bring the dispute between Google Ireland and AGCOM to an end. In preliminary ruling proceedings, the Court of Justice interprets EU law but does not replace the national court in making the final assessment of the facts. The decision on the lawfulness of the €750,000 fine and the removal order therefore remains with Italy’s Council of State.
The Italian court will have to establish how the YouTube Partner Programme operated in this case, what checks were actually carried out on the channel, and what knowledge Google acquired about the nature of the videos. It must also determine whether the checks performed were sufficient to rule out the conclusion that the platform’s role was merely technical, automatic and passive. Only after that assessment will it be possible to decide whether Google is entitled to benefit from the exemption provided by the directive.
A significant precedent for creators and platforms
The significance of the ruling extends beyond the Italian proceedings. The business models of major platforms increasingly rely on partnership programmes that connect the visibility of content with advertising revenues and their distribution between the platform and creators. The boundary between hosting, monetisation and control is particularly sensitive in regulated sectors. Gambling is one of the clearest examples, but the same issue may arise with content concerning financial products, investments, healthcare services, or other activities subject to advertising restrictions.
For platforms, the judgment requires closer consideration of the procedures for selecting and monitoring commercial partners. It may not always be possible to assess a channel’s revenue-generating potential while simultaneously claiming to be entirely detached from the nature of the content being monetised. Gambling operators and content creators will also need to pay greater attention to how videos published online are classified. Live streams, reviews, demonstrations of gambling gameplay, links to external websites, and references to bonuses may constitute promotional content even when presented in an apparently editorial or entertainment-based format.
The next stage before Italy’s Council of State
The Court of Justice has therefore established a principle that is likely to shape the future of the dispute: the protection granted to hosting providers depends on the platform’s actual role and the level of knowledge it has acquired about the content. Google has not been definitively found liable, and the fine has not yet been upheld. The company will not, however, be able to base its defence solely on the fact that the videos were uploaded by a third party.
The Council of State must now determine whether the partnership with the creator and the review of the channel, in relation to the disputed content, transformed YouTube from a neutral intermediary into an operator actively involved in its commercial exploitation. It is along this increasingly blurred dividing line that not only the Italian proceedings, but also a significant part of the future relationship among digital platforms, the creator economy, and gambling advertising will be determined.
This article was first published on the Italian SiGMA News page on 16 July 2026.
Stay ahead with the stories driving global iGaming. Select SiGMA World as your source preference for exclusive voices, betting trends, prediction markets and key regulatory updates.
