Italy’s Constitutional Court removes €50,000 minimum for some gambling-ad penalties
Regulation2 min read
Italy’s Constitutional Court ruled that the €50,000 minimum administrative penalty for each breach of the gambling advertising ban is unconstitutional in cases where it is manifestly disproportionate. The ruling preserves the penalty based on 20% of the sponsorship or advertising value and allows lower fines in those cases.
The Constitutional Court struck down Article 9(2) of the Dignity decree insofar as it says the fine can never, for any single violation, fall below 50mila euro. The Senate has published the Court's judgment no. 172 of 8 July 2026. The Senate received the document as Document VII, no. 194, and it arrived at the Presidency on 20 October 2026.
The Lazio regional administrative court (Tar) referred the question during an appeal brought by an individual against an injunction order issued by the communications authority Agcom. That order set a combined penalty of 157mila euro over promotional videos for online games and betting, posted on two YouTube channels and one Twitch channel. According to the source, the appellant had made about a thousand euros from Twitch and received no payment from the two YouTube channels. Agcom's penalty for the first channel was 55mila euro, and it added two further penalties of 51mila euro each for the remaining two. The Lazio Tar questioned whether the sanctions were proportionate.
The Constitutional Court found the questions well founded, recognising that the rigid minimum can in some cases produce a penalty that is manifestly disproportionate to the actual conduct. It noted that the mechanism could be excessively burdensome for individuals who use online platforms outside any business activity. The Court also said that removing the minimum entirely would not be an adequate solution. It said this could lead to negligible or even zero penalties, undermining the deterrent function of the provision.
The ruling leaves the 20% proportional criterion, linked to the value of the sponsorship or advertising, in place, yet it opens the way to an amount below 50mila euro where there is manifest disproportion. To judge such disproportion, the Court refers to Article 11 of law no. 689/1981, whose criteria include the gravity of the violation, the offender's efforts to remove or reduce its consequences, and the offender's personality and economic conditions. The Court added that the legislature remains free to design a different sanctioning mechanism.