Author: Ottavio Porto - WH Partners
The general ban on gambling advertising introduced in Italy in 2018 represents one of the most far-reaching regulatory interventions in the European gambling sector. However, the evolution of the digital ecosystem and the emergence of new intermediary figures, such as tipsters, streamers and betting influencers, have progressively revealed the limitations of a regulatory model largely based on a prohibitionist approach.
This article analyses the contradictions generated by the current regulatory framework, focusing on the distinction between digital actors operating in cooperation with licensed operators and those promoting offshore (.com) gambling markets. Considerable attention is paid to the inadequacy of existing enforcement mechanisms and to the role played by large digital platforms in shaping the visibility of gambling-related content. The article ultimately calls for a regulatory reassessment aimed at enhancing transparency and proportionality, also in light of potential developments in European case law.
Introduction
The regulation of gambling traditionally represents one of the most complex areas of public economic law. Legislators are required to balance a wide range of interests, including the protection of public health, the prevention of behavioural addictions, consumer protection, the safeguarding of tax revenues, and the need to combat illegal gambling. In the Italian context, this balance was significantly altered with the introduction of a general ban on gambling advertising under the so-called Decreto Dignità.
The declared objective of this legislative intervention was to reduce citizens’ exposure to gambling-related promotional messages in order to limit phenomena associated with Gambling Disorder.
Several years after its adoption, however, the regulatory framework reveals a number of structural shortcomings that raise serious questions regarding the effectiveness of the prohibitionist model adopted by the Italian legislator. The rapid evolution of digital platforms has profoundly transformed the mechanisms through which gambling services are promoted, giving rise to new actors and communication practices that are difficult to frame within traditional advertising law categories.
The Italian regulatory approach is based on a relatively straightforward assumption: limiting commercial communication reduces demand for gambling.
This assumption reflects a paternalistic regulatory paradigm in which restricting advertising exposure is considered an effective instrument for mitigating social risks. However, applying this model to the digital economy reveals several structural limitations. The very notion of advertising has evolved significantly with the emergence of online platforms, where promotional communication increasingly takes the form of editorial content, live streaming, digital communities, and affiliate marketing systems.
Within such an ecosystem, a blanket ban on advertising may appear formally rigorous yet practically ineffective, as it fails to capture the more subtle forms of promotional activity that characterise contemporary digital markets.
Tipsters and Streamers: Between Regulated Ecosystems and Offshore Markets
Public debate often portrays the phenomenon of tipsters and streamers as a homogeneous category. From a legal and economic perspective, however, it is essential to distinguish between two fundamentally different models. On the one hand, there are tipsters and streamers who collaborate with nationally licensed gambling operators through formal contractual arrangements designed to comply with the regulatory framework. In these cases, content creation activities are embedded within structured affiliate agreements developed with the assistance of legal and regulatory professionals. Within this regulated environment, promotional activities become traceable and attributable to identifiable operators subject to national oversight. Rather than circumventing the regulatory system, these actors can actually enhance transparency in the market by making promotional flows and economic relationships between content creators and gambling operators identifiable and accountable. On the other hand, a substantially different phenomenon involves tipsters and streamers who promote offshore gambling platforms operating without national licenses, typically through .com domains. In these cases, promotional activities are often based on opaque affiliation schemes through which content creators receive commissions or percentages based on players’ losses.
These activities are usually conducted through streaming platforms, social media networks, and private messaging channels, making enforcement by national authorities extremely difficult.
The result is a significant distortion of the market: while regulated operators face strict limitations on communication, illegal operators are able to promote their services through digital channels that remain largely beyond the reach of national regulatory frameworks.
The Inadequacy of Enforcement Mechanisms
The Italian supervisory framework primarily relies on the activities of the Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni and the Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli (AGCOM and ADM).
However, the investigative tools currently available to these authorities often prove insufficient when addressing phenomena characterized by high levels of digital mobility and transnational corporate structures. Illegal tipsters frequently rely on encrypted messaging platforms, offshore servers, and payment infrastructures that are difficult to trace, often involving crypto currency. As a consequence, identifying the individuals or entities that ultimately benefit economically from these activities becomes extremely complex. This situation reflects a broader regulatory paradox commonly observed in technologically outdated regulatory systems: legal enforcement mechanisms tend to affect identifiable and compliant actors more easily than those operating outside the legal framework.
Another crucial aspect concerns the role of large digital platforms that host and distribute gambling-related content. These companies typically rely on the limited liability regime applicable to hosting providers under European law, a framework recently updated by the Digital Services Act.
According to this model, platforms are not required to conduct prior monitoring of user-generated content and are generally held liable only once they acquire actual knowledge of illegal material and fail to remove it. However, this legal characterisation increasingly appears misaligned with the actual role played by major digital platforms within contemporary digital markets. Through recommendation algorithms, automated moderation systems, and visibility management policies, these platforms exercise significant influence over the circulation of information and the visibility of online content.
Within the gambling sector, this dynamic becomes particularly problematic. Despite the availability of reporting mechanisms intended to allow licensed operators to flag illegal promotional content, platform moderation systems often produce inconsistent outcomes.
Content associated with licensed and contractually compliant operators may be removed or restricted through automated moderation processes, while content promoting unlicensed gambling services frequently remains accessible and continues to circulate within the same digital infrastructures. Such inconsistent enforcement practices risk distorting market competition by altering the visibility of market actors and indirectly influencing consumer behaviour.
The Difficulties of Judicial Remedies
Initiating legal proceedings against large digital platforms remains an extremely challenging undertaking for market operators. These corporations are frequently established in foreign jurisdictions and operate through complex corporate structures, making it difficult to determine the competent court and the applicable legal framework. In addition, international litigation involves significant financial costs and uncertain outcomes, particularly given the evolving nature of European legislation and case law concerning intermediary liability. Consequently, licensed operators often find themselves lacking effective legal remedies against platform moderation decisions that may substantially affect their economic activities.
The tensions generated by the current regulatory framework also raise questions of constitutional and European law. The absolute ban on gambling advertising may be subject to scrutiny under the principles of proportionality and compatibility with economic freedom and commercial expression.
In this context, it cannot be excluded that the ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights) may eventually be called upon to evaluate the compatibility of the Italian regulatory model with fundamental rights principles.
Recent judicial decisions illustrate how particularly restrictive legislative interventions may subsequently be reconsidered by courts. The Italian Constitutional Court has already declared unconstitutional certain provisions concerning the prohibition of personal computer access to online gambling within bars and public places. These precedents suggest that the rules governing gambling advertising may also become subject to future judicial reconsideration. At the same time, however, they highlight the frustration felt by many lawful operators who, thus far unheard, are facing fines and “pilot” proceedings based on outdated regulations that will almost certainly be revised, yet which risk driving them out of the market before the necessary corrective measures are introduced.
Conclusion
The analysis conducted in this article highlights several systemic weaknesses within the current Italian regulatory framework governing gambling advertising. Although the general ban introduced by the legislature was originally justified by the need to protect public health and prevent gambling-related harm, the technological and market environment in which this regulation now operates has changed profoundly. The rapid evolution of digital platforms, the emergence of new informational intermediaries such as tipsters and streamers, and the growing presence of offshore gambling operators outside the national licensing system have revealed significant regulatory asymmetry. Licensed operators remain subject to strict communication restrictions and extensive administrative oversight, while unlicensed actors can exploit global digital infrastructures to promote illegal gambling activities with relatively limited regulatory risk. In this context, it appears increasingly necessary to move beyond the current predominantly prohibition-based approach and toward a regulatory model focused on transparency, traceability of promotional activities, and enhanced institutional capacity to monitor digital ecosystems. A first line of intervention could involve strengthening the existing regulatory authorities. In particular, the creation of specialised units dedicated to monitoring digital gambling markets within AGCOM and ADM could significantly enhance the ability of regulators to identify and address illegal promotional practices occurring online.
These specialised units should possess expertise in digital platform analysis, online content monitoring, and the detection of promotional networks linked to unauthorised gambling operators.
At the same time, a more structured form of cooperation with major digital platforms hosting gambling-related content appears necessary. Social platforms have become central distribution channels for betting-related content. In this regard, it may be appropriate to introduce dedicated oversight roles within such platforms, specifically tasked with monitoring gambling-related content and coordinating with national regulatory authorities. Another possible institutional development could involve the creation of new intermediary regulatory figures capable of bridging the gap between market operators, regulators, and policymakers. In this perspective, the establishment of a National Observatory for the Legal Gambling Market could provide an institutional focal point responsible for monitoring market developments, facilitating dialogue among stakeholders, and proposing regulatory improvements.
Such an institutional framework could also be replicated at the regional level through the appointment of regional coordinators for legal gambling oversight, tasked with monitoring local market dynamics and facilitating cooperation between operators, regional administrations, and national authorities.
Ultimately, the regulatory challenges posed by digital gambling cannot be effectively addressed solely through sanctions or blanket prohibitions. Instead, they require the development of a multi-level governance framework capable of integrating legal, technological, and institutional tools. Only through such a comprehensive regulatory reassessment will it be possible to ensure effective consumer protection, combat illegal gambling more efficiently, and preserve the stability of the licensed gambling system that remains a cornerstone of the Italian regulatory model.