Court annuls €24,000 ADM fine against slot operator over unauthorised betting

A court has annulled a €24,000 fine that the Amministrazione delle Dogane e dei Monopoli (ADM) issued against a company managing eight AWP gaming machines in a licensed venue. The court found that the company was not automatically liable for unauthorised online betting activity started later by the venue operator using nine computers supplied by a third party, according to the ruling.

The company had a contract to manage eight machines under Article 110, paragraph 6, letter a), of the TULPS. At installation, the venue held the licence under Article 86 TULPS and the related games table, and the machines were connected to the telematic network through an authorised concessionaire. According to the ruling, no betting activity was being carried out at the venue at the time of installation.

During a later inspection, ADM officials and police found the nine computers made available to customers for remote games and betting through a telematic connection and access credentials. The venue did not hold the Article 88 TULPS licence for betting collection. ADM considered the company that installed the AWP machines liable under Article 110, paragraph 9, letter f-bis), TULPS, which covers distributing, installing or allowing the use of gaming machines in premises without the required authorisations, and issued an injunction and confiscation order with a €24,000 administrative fine plus notification costs.

The company opposed the order, arguing that the venue held all authorisations required for the AWP activity when the eight machines were installed, and that the nine computers were introduced later on the venue operator's own initiative through a different operator. It said there was no connection between its machines and the later betting activity. ADM disputed the defence and asked for the opposition to be rejected. During the proceedings the court suspended the enforceability of the order.

In upholding the appeal, the court held that the Article 88 betting licence was not required for installing the AWP machines in the circumstances established, and that the later unauthorised activity could not automatically create liability for the slot operator. The ruling states that the betting activity through the nine computers "non ha alcuna connessione con gli otto apparecchi installati dalla società ricorrente". The court said any liability for the missing Article 88 licence could fall on the venue operator.

The court also addressed the scope of checks by the machine owner or manager. It agreed that the owner and manager must verify the required authorisations at the time of installation, but that this check cannot automatically be extended to the later period. The ruling does not establish a general exemption from any subsequent control obligation under other provisions; it concerns the case examined, in which the irregularity arose from a different activity introduced after the AWP installation and not attributable to the sanctioned company.

The ruling also addressed the effects of Constitutional Court judgment 104/2025. The venue operator had been cited for allowing users to place remote bets with cash winnings through the nine computers, in breach of Article 7, paragraph 3-quater, of decree-law 158/2012, the so-called Balduzzi decree, with the penalty framework under law 208/2015. That finding had helped qualify the activity as betting collection, from which ADM derived the need for the Article 88 licence and the company's liability. The court noted that the Balduzzi provision cited in the assessment was later declared constitutionally illegitimate by the Constitutional Court in judgment 104/2025, which it gave as a further reason to annul the fine.

It was reported that the decision does not affirm a general lawfulness of collecting bets through computers installed in public premises, nor does it remove the authorisation requirements for activities subject to them. The judgment concerns the legitimacy of a specific injunction and whether liability for a separate activity later carried out by others can be attributed to the AWP manager. The source gives no appeal status.