What AGCOM actually did
AGCOM's Council approved Resolution 200/26/CONS on 29 July 2026. It was published on 10 August and entered into force on 11 August. It supplements the 2019 guidelines on campaigns against gambling disorder (Resolution 132/19/CONS). Italy has banned gambling advertising since the 2018 Decreto Dignità, and the new text closes a gap in that ban: calling a campaign 'responsible gambling' does not exempt it from the prohibition. AGCOM's resolution page is the primary record. We could not machine-read its text, so the operational detail below comes from trade and legal-news summaries of it.
According to those summaries, preventive content must dominate the message and carry a clear risk warning. Concessionaire logos may appear for identification but cannot be visually dominant. Commercial slogans and references to bonuses or products are excluded. QR codes and links may not lead to gaming offers, only to neutral player-protection pages that are functionally separate from commercial sections. The campaigns are funded under Legislative Decree 41/2024, which requires concessionaires to set aside 0.2% of net revenues, capped at €1 million a year (L'Ente Pubblica).
The strongest case for the rules
The regulatory problem is real. A ban on advertising is only as strong as its definition of 'advertising'. If an operator can pay for a campaign that carries its logo, a celebrity testimonial and a link to its site, and call it public-health messaging, the ban becomes optional. Prevention campaigns that double as brand exposure can reach exactly the audiences the Decreto Dignità was meant to shield. Regulators are right to close that route, and AGCOM's tests are reasonably concrete: does the prevention message dominate, is the risk warning clear, and does the destination page carry no promotion.
Why the design is right
The guidelines test what a communication does rather than what it calls itself. That is the proportionate approach, and it is the one regulators should take with digital platforms too. It gives operators a checkable standard. It avoids banning the legitimate public-health speech that the law itself funds. It also makes no assumption about who publishes the content: the guidelines reportedly cover concessionaires, clients, media, distribution-site owners and anyone else who creates or disseminates such communications.
Compare the alternative. A blanket rule that any content mentioning gambling is suspect would push platforms toward over-removal. That would hit harm-reduction material, news reporting and research along with the advertising. A functional test narrows enforcement to deceptive or disguised promotion.
The platform link is indirect, and we should say so
It would be wrong to read this resolution as a platform regulation. We could not confirm that its text imposes duties on online platforms or influencers. Press summaries say the authority is worried about 'social tipsters' who promise predictive methods or guaranteed wins, and that influencers may not appear in paid gambling campaigns. We cannot verify from the primary text how those concerns are operationalised. Influencer promotion of gambling was already prohibited (Casinos.com).
What the resolution does show is how AGCOM works. It is Italy's Digital Services Coordinator under Regulation (EU) 2022/2065, the Digital Services Act. It is also the author of Resolution 197/25/CONS, the 2025 influencer guidelines and code of conduct. They stress transparency, accountability and protection of minors (ECC-Net Italia). Gambling-campaign rules, influencer rules and DSA coordination now sit under one regulator, so the way it frames one regime will likely shape the others.
Where the risks lie
The DSA has its own limits. Article 8 of the DSA bars general monitoring obligations on intermediaries. Any attempt to turn 'disguised advertising' standards into proactive platform scanning of user posts would clash with that rule. Advertising law should hold advertisers and publishers accountable. Platforms should be handled through the DSA's notice-and-action and transparency mechanisms.
There are two open questions for AGCOM:
- Legal certainty for creators. 'Disguised advertising' needs clear, published examples. The guidelines' differentiated messaging for minors (11–17), young adults (18–24) and over-65s, with mandatory pre-testing, is a useful model, because it demands evidence rather than assertion.
- Evidence of effect. Operators must reportedly submit annual reports on campaign costs, reach and effectiveness. AGCOM should publish aggregate findings so that Parliament and the public can judge whether the campaigns reduce harm rather than simply comply.
AGCOM has also signalled it will soon revise the 2019 advertising standards, with sports broadcasts and betting-brand visibility in view. That revision is where the platform questions will bite. We would favour keeping the same discipline: substance-based tests, named responsible parties, and no general monitoring duty for intermediaries.
Bottom line
Resolution 200/26/CONS is a narrow, defensible measure that shuts a real loophole without restricting lawful speech. Its lesson for platform regulation is its method: judge function over label, put duties on the party that controls the message, and publish the evidence. Italy's wider platform agenda should follow that method rather than expanding intermediary monitoring.