Share This Article
Gambling advertising in Italy remains one of the most closely regulated areas of the country’s gambling market. The recent approval of the so-called Decree Accise by the Italian Senate has brought the issue back into focus, particularly because Parliament considered, and rejected, proposals that would have extended the rules to a much wider range of promotional activities.
The proposed amendments concerning affiliate marketing, influencers and digital content creators, promotional codes, bonuses and direct or indirect links to gambling platforms were not approved. The final provision is narrower. This does not mean that these activities are outside the existing gambling advertising rules in Italy. Some are already capable of falling within the prohibition under the existing framework, depending on how the activity is structured and implemented.
Gambling advertising in Italy: what changed?
The starting point remains Article 9 of the so-called Dignity Decree, which introduced a broad prohibition on advertising and sponsorship concerning gambling and betting with cash prizes. The provision covers advertising and other promotional communications and extends to sponsorships of events, activities, programmes, products and services. This broad ban has created a very different commercial environment from many other European gambling markets. I have previously analysed the practical boundaries of the regime in Italian Gambling Advertising Ban: Do’s and Don’ts in Legal Design.
The new Decree Accise does not remove that prohibition. Instead, it introduces a specific fiscal rule concerning certain sponsorships and analogous contractual arrangements. Certain expenses relating to sponsorships or similar contracts incurred by entities directly or indirectly connected with licensed gambling operators are not deductible for income taxes and IRAP where the relevant recipients provide gambling-related information or services comparing odds or offers. The provision applies to expenses incurred from the tax period following the one in progress on 31 December 2025.
This is a targeted fiscal measure. It should therefore not be confused with a general extension of the gambling advertising prohibition.
What did Parliament reject?
Amendment 2-ter.1 would have extended the scope of the new fiscal provision to entities that, directly or through third parties, conduct:
- affiliate marketing;
- promotion through digital content creators;
- distribution of promotional codes or bonuses; and
- direct or indirect links to gambling or betting platforms.
The amendment was rejected. An identical replacement amendment, 2-ter.2, was also proposed.
An accompanying order of the day also called on the Government to consider further measures against indirect gambling promotion, specifically mentioning affiliate marketing, influencers and content creators, promotional codes, bonuses and links to gambling platforms. That order of the day was itself rejected and therefore do not form part of the new law.
At the same time, the parliamentary debate gives a useful indication of the areas attracting attention as digital marketing models evolve. That includes activities which can sit between conventional advertising and more indirect forms of customer acquisition.
Affiliate marketing remains a sensitive area
The rejection of the amendment does not mean that affiliate marketing is unregulated.
In 2024, the TAR Lazio upheld an AGCOM sanction concerning the violation of the Italian gambling advertising ban through affiliate agreements. The case concerned an online gambling licence holder and promotional activity carried out through affiliates. I discussed the decision in Italian Court Upholds Sanction for Gambling Advertising Ban’s Violation Through Affiliate Agreements.
The case illustrates why an operator cannot assess an affiliate arrangement simply by looking at the contract. The actual content published, the commercial relationship, the way the user is directed towards the gambling service and the remuneration model can all become relevant. This is particularly important for international operators entering Italy with an affiliate programme that was originally designed for other European markets. The Italian analysis needs to be carried out separately.
Responsible gambling creates a different branding opportunity
There is also another development that I think is particularly relevant for operators investing in Italy. AGCOM has now issued supplementary guidelines on responsible gambling campaigns, following the reform of the Italian remote gambling licensing regime.
The new framework allows licensed operators to conduct responsible gambling communications within defined parameters, including limited use of the operator’s logo or trademark, provided that the communication remains genuinely focused on prevention and player protection and does not become promotional.
This is significant because concessionaires are required to invest annually in responsible gambling communications, at 0.2% of net revenues subject to a €1 million cap. The guidelines therefore create something that has been largely absent since the introduction of the gambling advertising ban: a defined regulatory framework in which an operator can communicate its brand while focusing on responsible gambling. I looked at this in detail in Italian Responsible Gambling Campaigns: New Rules Open a Branding Window for Licensed Operators.
The opportunity is real, but the boundaries are equally important. AGCOM’s approach looks at the substance of the communication, including its content, context, format, frequency, use of the mark and any referral towards the gaming offer.
For operators, this creates an interesting commercial question: how can a mandatory responsible gambling investment also contribute to legitimate brand visibility without becoming gambling promotion?
Can a non-gambling website sponsor a football team?
This is becoming one of the more interesting questions in the Italian market. An international gambling group may operate a licensed gambling website while also owning businesses that provide other services, such as technology, media, entertainment or other digital products. The existence of the gambling business does not automatically mean that every other activity carried out by the group constitutes gambling advertising. The analysis has to focus on what is actually being promoted.
This becomes particularly relevant when a non-gambling website or brand becomes a sponsor of a major sporting event or team. The commercial opportunity is obvious. A group may want to build awareness of a technology or entertainment brand through football sponsorship while keeping that business distinct from its gambling operation.
But corporate separation alone is not enough. Article 9 covers indirect advertising, so the structure needs to be assessed carefully. The relevant questions include who owns the brand, what services the website offers, whether the site directs users towards gambling products, how the trademarks are presented, whether the gambling business and the non-gambling business share customer journeys, and whether the sponsorship creates a sufficiently clear distinction between the two.
This is why I would advise an operator considering such a structure to conduct the legal analysis before signing the sponsorship agreement, rather than trying to justify the structure after the campaign has launched.
The objective should be to create a genuine commercial separation that can also be explained to AGCOM if questions arise.
Sports sponsorship remains an important part of the debate
This issue is particularly relevant in Italian football. I discussed the broader debate around the future of the gambling advertising prohibition in Removal of the Italian Gambling Advertising Ban: Why Italy’s Football Authority Is Now Pushing for Change.
The fact that the football sector continues to discuss the economic consequences of the advertising restrictions is relevant for investors. The current prohibition remains in place, but the commercial demand for sponsorship has not disappeared. This creates an interesting market for businesses that can legitimately operate outside the gambling advertising prohibition.
A technology company owned by a gambling group, for example, may have very different possibilities from the gambling operator itself. The legal question is whether the technology company is genuinely promoting its own business or whether the sponsorship is being used as a way of putting the gambling brand back into the market indirectly.
That distinction should be reflected in the corporate structure, branding, contractual arrangements and marketing execution.
The digital advertising ecosystem matters too
The recent ECJ judgment concerning Google’s YouTube platform provides another useful example. In Case C-421/24, the Court considered the exposure of a hosting provider in relation to gambling advertising on YouTube. The judgment examined, among other things, Google’s revenue-sharing relationship with content creators and the extent of Google’s involvement in reviewing channels containing gambling-related content. I analysed the decision in Google Gambling Advertising: Why the ECJ Denied YouTube Hosting Immunity.
The case is relevant beyond YouTube. It illustrates how the legal analysis can change when an intermediary moves beyond simply providing technical infrastructure and becomes more involved in the commercial relationship or content ecosystem. For operators, affiliates and platforms, this means that the advertising analysis increasingly needs to consider the entire commercial chain.
What does this mean for international operators?
For an international gambling operator considering investment in Italy, I would focus on the current rules rather than designing a strategy around proposals that Parliament has rejected. That means understanding the Article 9 prohibition, the new fiscal rules, the responsible gambling framework and the enforcement approach taken by AGCOM. It also means looking carefully at the structure of the wider group.
If an operator wants to invest in a non-gambling business that can develop its own brand, enter sponsorship agreements or build a digital audience, the legal and commercial separation should be considered from the beginning. The same applies to affiliate programmes and influencer relationships. An arrangement that is acceptable in another European market may require substantial changes before it can be used in Italy.
For me, this is where the Italian market becomes particularly interesting. The rules are restrictive, but they are increasingly defined. There are now clearer parameters around responsible gambling communications, a developed body of enforcement experience and an active discussion about how the framework should evolve.
For investors, regulatory certainty about what can be done is often more useful than a theoretical freedom to do everything.
Italy remains a large regulated gambling market. Operators that understand the boundaries can structure their investments, brands and commercial relationships around them.
The question I would therefore ask an international operator considering Italy is:
How can you structure your Italian business so that the gambling operation remains fully compliant, while your wider group can still build brands, invest in sports and develop new commercial opportunities?