Italy’s Constitutional Court has ruled that AGCOM may set fines below the €50,000 per-violation minimum in the Dignity Decree’s gambling advertising ban when that floor is manifestly disproportionate. Ruling no. 172, filed on 20 October 2026, stems from €157,000 in penalties imposed on a private individual who earned about €1,000 from promotional videos.
The advertising ban itself stays in force. The Court struck only the wording that made the €50,000 floor mandatory in every case, according to the ruling published in the Official Gazette on 21 October 2026.
The €157,000 case
The case was referred by the Lazio Regional Administrative Court (TAR Lazio), fourth section, in an order dated 29 July 2025. The applicant had posted promotional videos for online gaming and betting on two YouTube channels and one Twitch channel, acting outside any business context, the ruling states.
The channels had 64, 2,010 and 2,504 followers, and the videos drew 53, 202 and 112 views respectively. The creator earned about €1,000 from Twitch and nothing from YouTube. Because 20% of that income fell far below the minimum, AGCOM fined him €55,000 for one channel, citing a commercial partnership, and €51,000 for each of the other two.
The TAR described the creator as a 28-year-old warehouse assistant earning about €1,300 a month, and noted that the total fine was more than 150 times his profit.
What the Court changed
Article 9, paragraph 2, of Decree-Law 87/2018, converted by Law 96/2018, sets the fine at 20% of the value of the sponsorship or advertising, and in any case at no less than €50,000 per violation. The Court found that this rigid floor breached Articles 3 and 42 of the Italian Constitution, on reasonableness and property rights, when applied to marginal conduct.
It did not grant the TAR’s request to simply remove the floor. The judges said the 20% rule alone would often produce a fine close to zero, leaving the ban without a deterrent. Instead, the Court issued an additive ruling: €50,000 remains the rule, but a lower amount may be applied in cases of manifest disproportion.
The criteria for going lower are those in Article 11 of Law 689/1981: the seriousness of the violation, the offender’s efforts to remove or reduce its consequences, the offender’s personality and financial circumstances. The Court noted that AGCOM already used these criteria, but only to raise fines above the floor.
The ruling was delivered with Giovanni Amoroso, President of the Constitutional Court, presiding, and Antonella Sciarrone Alibrandi as the reporting judge.
What it means for enforcement
Commenting on the decision, law firm Lemodi Legal said the Court is not, for the time being, challenging the advertising ban introduced by Article 9. The flaw lies only in the mandatory threshold, which the firm said can produce manifestly disproportionate results when the conduct is marginal.
The Court itself noted that most AGCOM fines under Article 9 are set at the €50,000 floor, often multiplied by the number of violations, because social media promotions rarely generate revenue above €250,000. It cited AGCOM’s fines of €2.25m on Google Ireland and €900,000 on Twitch Interactive Germany, the owners of the platforms hosting the applicant’s channels, as examples where the multiplied floor reached large companies.
The ruling also distinguishes the advertising ban from the rule on internet-connected gaming devices in public venues, struck down in ruling no. 104 of 2025. All conduct covered by Article 9 shares the common feature of being prohibited advertising, the Court said. The judgment comes as Italy debates the future of the ban, including proposals to scrap it after the World Cup.
Next steps
The case returns to TAR Lazio, which must now decide on the €157,000 penalty under the amended rule. AGCOM can apply lower fines in future proceedings where the minimum is manifestly disproportionate.
The Court said Parliament remains free to design a different penalty system for the ban. Separately, AGCOM is running a public consultation on its Article 9 guidelines for responsible gaming communications, under decision 85/26/CONS.
Source: Constitutional Court of Italy
