The Court of Justice of the European Union is due to consider whether Google is responsible for content and advertising published on YouTube by commercial partners. The case originates in Italy and concerns the application of Italian law; the available text gives no hearing or ruling date.
The court’s decision could affect platform responsibility for gambling content and advertising shared by commercial partners.
The day’s most important stories, free. One email a day.
Italy’s Court of Cassation confirmed that data transmission centres can be jointly liable with foreign bookmakers for Italy’s single betting tax, even when betting takes place outside the licensing system. It rejected challenges concerning EU law, territorial scope and translation of tax notices, but ordered a new examination of the 2015 tax calculation.
Italy’s Court of Cassation rejected a Maltese betting company’s appeal and upheld joint liability for the company and a connected data transmission centre over betting tax for 2015. The court said the tax applies when bets are collected in Italy, even if the bookmaker is based abroad and lacks a domestic concession.
Italy’s Court of Audit said a lottery retailer who fails to remit gaming proceeds can be liable for the resulting public revenue loss and service damage. Its 2025 activity report says the financial loss is calculated from the proceeds shown in the concessionaire’s account, subject to specified deductions and additions.
Italy’s Court of Cassation ruled that a bar owner can be criminally liable for unauthorised betting organised at the premises, even when an employee places the bets. The court said liability can arise where the owner knowingly enables or tolerates the collection of customers’ stakes through third-party accounts without the required authorisations.
Italy’s Supreme Court upheld the tax liability of Stanleybet Malta for betting activity conducted in 2009 by its Italian affiliate, Royal Betting. In its ruling on the company’s appeal against the Customs and Monopolies Agency, the court excluded tax penalties because of uncertainty in the rules at the time, but left the tax debt in place.