Italy's constitutional court rules €50,000 gambling ad fine minimum can be reduced

Italy's constitutional court has declared unconstitutional the fixed €50,000 minimum penalty under article 9(2) of the Dignity Decree for breaches of the ban on gambling advertising, in judgment 172 deposited on 20 October, according to the judgment text. The court ruled that the provision is unlawful in the part requiring a fine of no less than €50,000 for each violation, instead allowing a lower amount where the minimum is manifestly disproportionate to the gravity of the breach, the offender's efforts to remove or mitigate its consequences, and the offender's personality and economic circumstances.

The judgment concerns article 9(2) of decree-law 87 of 12 July 2018, converted with amendments by law 96 of 9 August 2018. The provision sets a penalty equal to 20% of the value of the sponsorship or advertising and in any case not less than €50,000 for each violation. The case reached the court through the Lazio regional administrative court (TAR Lazio), which raised the constitutional questions by order of 29 July 2025 in proceedings brought by A. C. against AGCOM.

The underlying dispute concerns an AGCOM order fining a young content creator €157,000 for publishing promotional videos for online games and betting through two YouTube channels and one Twitch channel. The court said the amount resulted from applying the cumulative rule for penalties imposed for each channel: €55,000 for the first channel, taking account of the multiple harms of the conduct, the commercial partnership contract and the nature of the videos, and two fines of €51,000 each for the other channels, considering repetition of the conduct, its continuation over time and the absence of revenue. The creator earned about €1,000 from the Twitch channel and nothing from the YouTube channels, so 20% of the compensation was below the €50,000 threshold.

The court said AGCOM's application practice shows that most fines imposed by the authority are determined on the basis of the minimum threshold rather than the proportional criterion, with the amount multiplied for each violation established where necessary. It found the rigid €50,000 threshold can be excessive when applied to marginal episodes, such as occasional promotional activity by an individual acting outside any business logic on an online platform through a non-specialist channel accessible to a limited group of users, without any account being taken of the offender's economic condition.

According to the court, the €50,000 minimum remains a necessary safeguard for the interests protected by the provision, first among them health protection, but it is marked by severity and must be capable of mitigation whenever it produces a clear disproportion. To keep the penalty proportionate to the gravity of the offence while avoiding a loss of deterrent effect, the court held that the minimum under article 9(2) must be capable of being lowered, in line with the principles of reasonableness and proportionality. It pointed to the criteria in article 11 of law 689 of 1981, referred to by the provision itself, which give weight to the gravity of the violation, the offender's efforts to remove or mitigate its consequences, and the offender's personality and economic circumstances; those criteria must also be used to lower the penalty where the €50,000 minimum is manifestly disproportionate.

The judgment records that the TAR Lazio proceedings challenging the AGCOM order remain pending. The court heard the case at a public hearing on 24 June 2026, with judge Antonella Sciarrone Alibrandi as rapporteur, and deliberated in chambers on 8 July 2026. The judgment was registered as number 18 of the 2026 register of referral orders and published in the Official Gazette.