Italy’s gambling ad ban heads to Europe’s top court
Italy’s all-out ban on gambling ads has stirred fierce debate since 2018. The question of whether it holds up under EU law is now with Europe’s top court, the European Court of Justice (ECJ). Whichever way it goes, the decision is likely to send ripples through how gambling is managed across the EU.
The roots of Italy’s advertising crackdown
The Dignity Decree was part of a bigger effort to clean up social policy. Its boldest step? Wiping out gambling ads, even in football stadiums. Supporters agreed it was necessary to provide a way to cut off the noise and protect those most at risk.
But it didn’t land quietly. Operators cried foul, arguing they were doing things by the book. Football clubs raised eyebrows as sponsors pulled out. It felt like the wrong people were paying the price, and to many, it felt like using policy to punish the wrong people.
Among the most vocal opponents was LeoVegas, who joined the European Gaming and Betting Association (EGBA) a few months ago. In 2018, even before the ban took effect, the company filed a complaint with the European Commission. It claimed the decree breached EU law by restricting cross-border trade and services. The ban, LeoVegas argued, ignored the fact that regulated gambling firms already had robust player protection in place.
Things escalated in 2019 when Italy’s communications watchdog, AGCOM, fined the operator €50,000. The charge? Advertising its Italian brand Winga.it on Sky 237. LeoVegas hit back, saying the ads aired before the ban was active and should be protected under EU rules covering “information society services.”
Their first appeal was thrown out. But LeoVegas didn’t walk away. The case moved up to Italy’s Council of State, which then referred it to the ECJ for a final ruling.
The legal questions on the table
The big question? Whether one country can slam the door shut and still expect the neighbours not to complain. EU law protects the free movement of services and aims to prevent discrimination between businesses based in different countries. The ECJ will now have to decide if Italy’s approach steps over that line.
A win for LeoVegas could reshape how gambling is advertised across the bloc. If Italy wins the case, other countries may feel encouraged to introduce tighter advertising restrictions.
The timing couldn’t be better. The Senate may still be debating, but the conversation hasn’t stopped there. Ministers, media figures, and sports officials are already deep in discussions about what should come next. Meanwhile, ADM has its eye on the bigger picture, laying out what’s ahead in its Activity and Organisation Plan 2025 to 2027 (PIAO), a blueprint for what’s coming down the line. The Netherlands is watching from the wings, weighing its own approach. Wherever the ECJ lands, it’s bound to leave a mark.
Bigger than one company
This goes beyond one operator and a single fine. At stake is Europe’s broader balancing act—how to protect public health without choking the market. While some back strict gambling bans as the only way to keep harm in check, others say responsible oversight works better than silence. It’s not about blitzing the airwaves. LeoVegas wants a fairer setup. One that puts player safety first without closing the door on competition.
No matter how the ECJ rules, it won’t go unnoticed. If LeoVegas gets the nod, other countries might ease off their own bans. But if Italy gets its way, stricter rules could be on the cards across the bloc. Everyone with skin in the game is paying attention.
