Gaming: the Constitutional Court reduces the minimum threshold for advertising sanctions

The Constitutional Court has declared partially unlawful art. 9, paragraph 2, of decree-law 12 July 2018, n. 87 (the so-called Dignity Decree), converted with amendments into law 9 August 2018, n. 96: the minimum threshold of 50,000 euros for each violation of the gambling advertising ban is no longer mandatory. The decision, judgment n. 172, was filed in the Registry on October 20, 2026, and is published in the Official Gazette of the Italian Republic, 1st Special Series n. 42 of October 21, 2026. The ruling allows for a lower amount when the minimum proves to be manifestly disproportionate to the gravity of the violation, the action carried out by the agent, their personality, and their economic conditions.

Paragraph 1 of art. 9 of the Dignity Decree prohibits any form, including indirect, of advertising for games and betting with cash prizes and gambling, as well as sponsorships of events, activities, exhibitions, programs, products, or services. There are three targets of the ban: the client, the owner of the medium or the dissemination or destination site, and the organizer of the exhibition, event, or activity. Paragraph 2 punishes non-compliance with a penalty equal to 20 percent of the value of the sponsorship or advertising — a percentage originally set at 5 percent and then increased during the conversion process — and “in any case not less than, for each violation, 50,000 euros.” The Authority for Communications Guarantees (AGCOM) is the competent authority for the contestation and imposition of the penalty.

The judgment was promoted by the Regional Administrative Court (TAR) for Lazio, fourth section, by order of July 29, 2025 (reg. ord. n. 18 of 2026), in the proceedings between A. C. and AGCOM. The judgment was decided on July 8, 2026, with Giovanni Amoroso as president and Antonella Sciarrone Alibrandi as rapporteur.

The case from which the judgment arises

AGCOM had sanctioned the appellant for having published promotional videos for online games and betting via two YouTube channels and one Twitch channel, applying legal accumulation for each channel. The figures of the case, cited in the judgment:

• total penalty of 157,000 euros, broken down as follows: 55,000 euros for the Twitch channel and 51,000 euros for each of the two YouTube channels;
• appellant aged 28, assistant warehouse worker with a monthly salary of approximately 1,300 euros, unrelated to entrepreneurial logic;
• revenues of approximately 1,000 euros from the Twitch channel and no revenue from the YouTube channels;
• channels followed by 64, 2,010, and 2,504 followers, with 53, 202, and 112 views.

The TAR Lazio had requested an ablative ruling limited only to the minimum threshold, arguing that the proportional criterion of 20 percent would remain applicable without regulatory gaps.

Why the minimum threshold was reduced

The Constitutional Court has ruled the challenge well-founded for violation of Articles 3 and 42 of the Constitution, recognizing the punitive nature of the sanction and applying the principle of proportionality also to punitive administrative sanctions, following judgments no. 112 of 2019, no. 95 of 2022, and no. 108 of 2026. Two corollaries derive from this principle: the individualization of the sanction and the consideration of the offender’s economic conditions.

However, the Court rejected the path indicated by the TAR Lazio: a merely ablative ruling would have produced, in cases of meager or zero revenues, negligible or zero sanctions, resulting in “unsustainable gaps in protection” regarding health and other protected assets, as already noted in judgment no. 185 of 2021. The chosen remedy is instead the downward modulation of the minimum, using the criteria of Article 11 of Law no. 689 of November 24, 1981, to which the provision itself refers and which AGCOM already employs to increase the amount.

AGCOM practice and sanctions on platforms

The judgment documents how, in concrete terms, the minimum threshold prevailed over the proportional criterion: for most of the ascertained conducts, there is no corresponding value exceeding 250,000 euros, which would place 20 percent above 50,000 euros. The highest sanctions resulted from the accumulation of the minimum for a high number of violations:

• Google Ireland Limited: 2,250,000 euros (resolution 317/23/CONS);
• Twitch Interactive Germany: 900,000 euros (resolution 318/23/CONS).

The Court also cites data from the Court of Auditors, joint sections in its supervisory capacity, in the report on the 2025 General State Account: revenues decreased by 0.7 percent despite gross collection growing by 4.8 percent compared to the previous year.

What changes for publishers, sports companies, and advertisers

The prohibition in paragraph 1 remains fully in force, as does the sanctioning mechanism as a whole: only the rigidity of the minimum changes. Further issues remain absorbed, and the legislator’s discretion to redesign the mechanism remains intact. This framework coexists with Legislative Decree no. 41 of March 25, 2024, which reorganized the gaming sector and whose Article 24 defers the identification of repealed rules to subsequent interventions, providing that until that time “the relative sanctions continue to apply to the violations provided for by the current legal provisions.” AGCOM, noting the coexistence of the two disciplines, has launched a public consultation with resolution no. 85/26/CONS to integrate the Guidelines of April 18, 2019.

For operators, the practical point is the end of the automatic process: those receiving a challenge for a sponsorship or gambling advertisement can now obtain an amount lower than 50,000 euros, but only by demonstrating a manifest disproportion relative to the gravity of the act, the work performed, the personality, and the economic conditions. The criterion of 20 percent of the value remains the reference parameter, while the deterrence of the minimum is preserved as a general rule.

Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana, 1st Special Series – Constitutional Court, no. 42 of October 21, 2026, judgment no. 172 (July 8 – October 20, 2026).