Share This Article
Google gambling advertising on YouTube can now trigger direct liability under the Italian so-called Dignity Decree, after the ECJ ruled that a platform running a revenue‑sharing partnership with its creators loses the hosting safe harbour.
The European Court of Justice has handed down a judgment that operators, platforms and advertising intermediaries active in Italy cannot afford to ignore. On 16 July 2026, in Case C‑421/24 (AGCOM v Google Ireland), the Second Chamber ruled on the exposure of a hosting provider for Google gambling advertising carried on YouTube, and the outcome is a significant win for the Italian Communications Authority (AGCOM). You can find the decision on the CURIA database.
What the AGCOM v Google case was about
The dispute originates from a decision of 19 July 2022, by which the Italian communications authority, AGCOM, fined Google EUR 750,000 for breaching Article 9 of Law Decree No. 87/2018, the so‑called Italian Dignity Decree, which prohibits any form of direct or indirect gambling advertising, however carried out.
AGCOM found that Google had allowed the promotion of gambling websites through videos published by content creators on five YouTube channels. Those channels even invited users, regardless of their age, to send in clips of their own winnings, in exchange for a payment, so that the creator could broadcast the biggest wins. On top of the fine, AGCOM ordered Google to remove 630 videos.
Google won at first instance. The Regional Administrative Court of Lazio (TAR Lazio) classified YouTube as a hosting service and applied the liability exemption transposing Article 14 of the e‑Commerce Directive (Directive 2000/31/EC). AGCOM appealed to the Administrative Supreme Court, the Council of State (Consiglio di Stato), which referred two questions to Luxembourg. Both, as we will see, went against Google.
1. Does the e‑Commerce Directive even apply to gambling advertising?
The first question was jurisdictional in nature. Article 1(5)(d) of the e‑Commerce Directive excludes “gambling activities which involve wagering a stake with monetary value” from the scope of the Directive. AGCOM argued that this exclusion switches off the Directive entirely, taking the hosting of gambling advertising outside its safe‑harbour regime altogether.
The Court took a more surgical approach. It confirmed that the exclusion is to be read broadly and that it captures not only gambling itself, but also activities “intrinsically linked” to it, including the online advertising of gambling. The rationale is the familiar one: the regulation of games of chance reflects deep moral, religious and cultural differences between Member States, so each State must keep the discretion to regulate advertising according to its own scale of values.
Crucially, however, the Court drew a line between the advertising and the hosting of that advertising. Hosting, it held, is neutral in relation to the content stored: storing a gambling ad is no different from storing any other content, and it is not intrinsically linked to gambling. It followed that an information society service consisting of hosting videos online falls within the scope of the Directive even where those videos contain gambling advertising.
For platforms, this is the good news, and it is a point Google was right to press: you do not lose the entire protective framework of the Directive simply because the content happens to promote betting. But the good news stops there.
2. Why Google lost its hosting safe harbour
The second question is where the judgment bites, and where I expect most commentary to concentrate. Could Google still rely on the Article 14 hosting exemption, given the commercial relationship it had with the creators through the YouTube Partner Programme?
The Court’s answer was no, and the reasoning is what makes the decision important. Building on its own case law in L’Oréal (C‑324/09), YouTube and Cyando (C‑682/18) and the very recent WebGroup Czech Republic (C‑188/24 and C‑190/24), the Court reiterated that the exemption is available only to an intermediary whose role is “neutral“, that is, merely technical, automatic and passive, with neither knowledge of nor control over the content. Knowledge and control, it clarified, are alternative and independent tests: either one is enough to defeat the exemption.
The Court then set the threshold lower than many had assumed. It is not necessary for the platform to have comprehensive knowledge of everything uploaded. Knowledge of the essential content is sufficient. And, importantly, the following do not, on their own, strip immunity:
- becoming aware of specific illegal content incidentally or by chance;
- being notified by a third party that illegal content is present;
- deploying voluntary technological measures to detect content that may infringe the law.
What did cross the line was the partnership itself. To admit a creator to the revenue‑sharing scheme, Google examined the channel’s main theme, its most viewed and newest videos, and the metadata, and assessed the originality and quality of the content, on top of the standard checks applied to all uploads. That review, whether automated or human, gave Google specific knowledge of the essential content of the channel. Combined with the sharing of advertising revenue, that took Google out of the “neutral” box and into an active role.
The practical conclusion, subject to verification by the Consiglio di Stato, is striking: by reviewing those channels, Google “could not reasonably have been unaware” that their main theme was gambling and that they carried videos advertising it, in breach of Article 9 of the Dignity Decree. The Article 14 exemption therefore does not apply.
Why this matters for the Italian gambling advertising ban
This is not an abstract point of EU law. It lands directly on the fault line of the Italian gambling advertising ban.
Since 2018, the Dignity Decree has imposed one of Europe’s strictest prohibitions, with AGCOM empowered to fine infringers 20% of the value of the advertising, and in any event no less than EUR 50,000 per infringement. Enforcement has repeatedly targeted the grey area of influencer and affiliate content, as I discussed when an Italian court upheld a sanction over affiliate agreements involving a content creator. After this judgment, AGCOM has a far stronger hand against the platforms that monetise such content, not only the operators and creators behind it.
The timing could not be more sensitive, because the ban has arguably pushed promotion into exactly the channels this case is about. According to the Observatory on Illegal Online Gambling at Data Room Nexus, Italy’s illegal online gambling market is now worth roughly EUR 20 billion in annual gross gaming revenue, with around 4.5 million users and more than 13 million recorded accesses in the first quarter of 2026 alone. More than 1,000 illegal sites were blocked in 2025 by means of orders of the Italian gambling authority, yet “mirror” clones reappear within hours, over 90% of visits arrive via smartphone, and Instagram, YouTube, Telegram and WhatsApp have become the primary gateways into the illegal ecosystem.
Set against a legal market whose 2025 state gaming revenue landed at about EUR 11.47 billion, and online play that grew some 153% between 2019 and 2024, the paradox is hard to miss: a ban designed to protect consumers has helped shift gambling promotion towards loosely policed digital channels, where illegal operators move faster than regulators can react. The ECJ has now told those channels that monetising the traffic can cost them the safe harbour.
The bigger picture: monetisation as the new liability trap
Strip away the gambling specifics and a broader principle emerges. The Court has effectively held that a partner or monetisation programme, coupled with a content review to admit creators, converts a “passive host” into an “active” one with knowledge of the essential content. That logic is not confined to betting. It reaches any platform that curates who gets paid, from video sharing to social commerce.
This dovetails with the direction of travel under the Digital Services Act, which already pushes very large platforms towards greater accountability for what they amplify and monetise. Read together, the trend is clear: the more a platform commercialises third‑party content, the harder it becomes to argue it is a mere technical intermediary. For anyone building a creator‑economy business touching the Italian market, that is a compliance parameter to design around, not an afterthought.
It also sharpens the debate on whether the ban should survive at all. As I have written on the possible removal of the ban and on the new responsible gambling advertising rules, the core question is shifting from “how do we comply?” to “should the ban still be there?”. This judgment strengthens enforcement precisely as the political case for reform is gathering pace, a tension that will define the next phase of Italian gaming law.
At DLA Piper we advise operators, platforms, advertising intermediaries and investors on exactly these issues, from the qualification of hosting and intermediary services to advertising, sponsorship and compliance strategy under the Italian gambling advertising ban. If you want to assess how this judgment affects your monetisation model or your exposure in Italy, my team and I would be glad to help you navigate the path. Feel free to reach out to me at giulio.coraggio@dlapiper.com.
On a similar topic, you may find interesting my article “Prediction Markets in Italy: What Polymarket’s New Blackout Tells Operators“.