Italy: AGCOM 2026 report records zero gambling advertising fines
Italy’s ban on gambling advertising remains in force. What has become far less certain is the legal landscape governing its enforcement. Eight years after the Dignity Decree introduced one of Europe’s broadest restrictions on gambling promotion, several of its most disputed elements are now before Italy’s Constitutional Court and the Court of Justice of the European Union.
That sense of legal limbo runs through AGCOM’s 2026 Annual Report, presented to Parliament on 14 July by the Authority’s president, Giacomo Lasorella. Covering mainly the period from 1 May 2025 to 30 April 2026, the report devotes a specific section to the application of Article 9 of Decree-Law No. 87 of 2018.
The provision imposed a sweeping ban on advertising and sponsorship connected with gambling and betting. The argument today, though, is no longer simply about whether that policy has worked. The courts are now considering how heavily breaches should be punished, when digital platforms can be held liable and whether Italy followed the correct European procedure when it introduced the measure.
AGCOM issued no new fines in 2025
One figure stands out immediately. AGCOM did not impose any new administrative fines for breaches of the gambling advertising ban during 2025.
The contrast with earlier years is difficult to miss. Fines and settlement payments totalled €12.39 million in 2023. By 2024, that figure had fallen to €1.81 million. The Authority had recorded €2.47 million in 2022 and a little over €133,000 in 2021.
A year without new fines does not mean the ban has quietly been abandoned. Nor does it suggest that AGCOM has stepped away from enforcement. The rules remain valid, and gambling advertising is still part of the Authority’s supervisory work. The figures point instead to a more cautious period. Several court cases remain unresolved, and their outcomes could alter some of the standards used in enforcement proceedings.
It would therefore be misleading to treat the lack of fines as proof that the market is fully compliant. Equally, there has been no informal suspension of the law. Monitoring continues, but the legal basis for certain sanctions is being tested in ways that may affect future cases.
€50,000 minimum fine goes before the Constitutional Court
The first major dispute concerns the proportionality of the penalties. On 29 July 2025, the Lazio Regional Administrative Court referred a question concerning Article 9, paragraph 2, of the Dignity Decree to the Constitutional Court. Under the provision, a breach may be punished by a fine equal to 20 per cent of the value of the advertising or sponsorship in question. However, the penalty for the campaign, whatever its value, cannot be less than €50,000 per infringement. That fixed minimum is now under scrutiny. The administrative court has not challenged the public-health objective behind the ban.
Reducing consumers’ exposure to gambling promotion remains a legitimate aim. The concern lies elsewhere: the law offers little scope to adapt the penalty to the circumstances of a particular case.
In practice, the same minimum fine may apply to conduct of a very different nature. A large national campaign and a promotional reference posted by an individual creator can both fall within Article 9, even though their reach, commercial value and influence may bear little resemblance to one another.
The Lazio court said the limited room for adjustment could conflict with Articles 3, 42 and 117 of the Italian Constitution. Its referral also draws on principles found in the European Convention on Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
At the centre of the case is proportionality. Where an administrative sanction has a distinctly punitive effect, the amount would normally be expected to reflect the seriousness of the breach, the recipient’s financial position, and the harm or consequences caused by the conduct.
The case centres on a content creator’s videos
The constitutional proceedings arise from a specific enforcement case. A content creator was fined €157,000 for videos published on YouTube and Twitch. The material featured banners and links leading viewers to gambling websites.
The dispute underlines how much the advertising landscape has changed since the Dignity Decree was adopted. Gambling promotion no longer appears only in television commercials, newspaper adverts or sports sponsorship. It may be included in a livestream, woven into an entertainment video or placed within content that otherwise feels casual and unscripted. That shift has made the boundary harder to define.
Editorial material, paid promotion, and straightforward brand exposure can now sit side by side in the same piece of content. The parties involved also differ enormously in size. At one end of the market are international operators with substantial advertising budgets. At the other end are independent creators earning revenue from a relatively small part of their online output.
The Constitutional Court is not being asked to decide whether the ban itself should survive. Its task is narrower: to establish whether the current system of penalties respects the principle of proportionality. The case was heard in public on 24 June 2026. The industry is now waiting for the judgment.
Even if the court finds fault with the existing mechanism, Article 9 would not necessarily disappear. A ruling could instead require a more flexible approach, allowing penalties to reflect meaningful differences in scale, value and impact.
Google case puts platform liability in the spotlight
A separate legal battle is unfolding in Luxembourg. Case C-421/24 arose from a preliminary reference by Italy’s Council of State in proceedings involving Google Ireland.
The dispute followed a €750,000 fine imposed by AGCOM, along with an order to remove promotional content from YouTube. The central question is whether an online platform can be held responsible for videos uploaded by its users, particularly creators enrolled in commercial partnership programmes.
European e-commerce law provides hosting providers with a degree of protection from liability for content stored at users’ request. That protection is not absolute. Much depends on the role the platform played and what it knew about the unlawful activity.
The relationship between YouTube and its partner creators is therefore crucial. Creators taking part in monetisation schemes may share advertising income with the platform and receive access to dedicated services or tools. That clearly creates a commercial relationship. It does not necessarily show, however, that YouTube directs, approves, or controls every video it publishes.
The judges must decide whether that commercial link is enough to make the platform an active participant in the production and distribution of the material. Alternatively, the liability exemption may continue to apply unless the company has exercised genuine control over the video in question. The distinction is not merely technical. A platform may know that gambling-related videos exist on its service without knowing that a particular upload breaches Italian law. A revenue-sharing agreement, by itself, may not amount to prior approval of everything a creator says or displays.
The outcome will be felt well beyond the gambling industry. Creator partnerships and revenue-sharing programmes are now embedded in the digital economy, connecting creators, advertisers and platforms through increasingly complex arrangements. A broad interpretation of liability could force platforms to review monetised material far more closely. A narrower ruling would leave greater responsibility with those who create and upload the content.
Inspections continue alongside the Guardia di Finanza
The absence of new fines in 2025 has not brought inspections to an end. Compliance with the gambling advertising ban remains part of AGCOM’s work with the Guardia di Finanza, Italy’s financial police.
Checks carried out during the year covered several areas within the Authority’s remit. These included consumer protection, electronic communications, audiovisual services, telemarketing, secondary ticketing and advertising connected with gambling and games offering cash prizes.
Supervision and sanctions are not the same thing. AGCOM can continue to examine the market, gather evidence, and assess conduct while the courts decide which legal standards should apply. The judgments from the Constitutional Court and the Court of Justice will eventually show whether the current system requires changes and, if so, how far those changes should go.
The ban remains, although its application may change
AGCOM’s 2026 report describes a system that is still functioning, but under growing legal pressure. The ban introduced in 2018 has not been suspended. It remains a central part of Italy’s approach to restricting gambling promotion. What may change is the manner in which it is enforced.
The Constitutional Court must decide whether the €50,000 minimum fine leaves enough room to reflect the seriousness of an infringement. The Court of Justice, meanwhile, will address the circumstances in which a platform can be held liable for content posted by its commercial partners. It will also consider whether Italy should have notified the European Commission before introducing the ban.
For operators, platforms, creators and regulators, these are not peripheral questions. The forthcoming decisions will help define the future balance among public health protection, economic freedom, intermediary liability, and proportionate enforcement.
The absence of fines in 2025 should be read against that background. It does not signal the end of the advertising ban. It marks a period of transition. Inspections continue. The law remains in force. The decisive arguments, however, have moved from the regulator’s offices into the courts.
This article was first published on the Italian SiGMA News page on 14 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.
