Italy: A Litigation: Highly Regarded Overview

The Italian judicial system has long faced structural pressures on procedural timelines, but 2026 marks a meaningful inflection point. Legislative reforms are reshaping the civil litigation landscape in ways that practitioners cannot afford to ignore. Three trends define the current environment: the progressive implementation of the Cartabia Reform and its 2024 corrective decree, the significant growth of collective redress mechanisms, and the intensification of public antitrust enforcement by the Italian Competition Authority. Cutting across all three is the still-evolving question of the proper role of artificial intelligence in legal proceedings.

Procedural Reform: The Cartabia Reform and the 2024 Corrective Decree

The reform introduced by Legislative Decree 149 of 10 October 2022 (the “Cartabia Reform”), as amended by Legislative Decree 164 of 31 October 2024 (the “Corrective Decree”), continues to reshape civil proceedings across all Italian courts. Its core objectives – rationalising procedural steps, strengthening ADR, accelerating litigation and advancing digitalisation – have begun to produce measurable results.

Digitalisation has been among the most visible achievements. Judgments are now published and communicated electronically, paper documentation requirements have been eliminated, and the Corrective Decree extended the new digital infrastructure to labour and Justice of the Peace proceedings (ie, to the lower court offices dealing with extended scope of activity both in civil and criminal matters). Full end-to-end digital management of civil proceedings is now standard practice across all three tiers of the judiciary, significantly reducing processing times at the filing and notification stages.

The results are already tangible. The average duration of civil proceedings across all three instances has fallen from approximately eight years a decade ago to five years by mid-2025. The PNRR target of a 40% decrease relative to 2019 benchmarks remains a work in progress, with 28,8% achieved to date.

In respect of first-instance proceedings, the reform front-loads the entire preparatory phase: all written submissions – initial pleadings, replies, rejoinders and evidentiary requests – must now be exchanged before the first hearing, with the writ of summons setting out the claim in its factual, legal entirety, and the statement of defence filed at least 70 days in advance, followed by three integrative briefs. This upstream concentration of the parties’ positions is not merely procedural, but reflects a deeper structural rationality, by transforming the mandatory conciliation attempt (pursuant to Article 183 of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure) from a formality into a genuinely informed settlement attempt, allowing the judge to have full knowledge of the dispute at hand since the first hearing. In the same spirit, the simplified procedure (rito semplificato di cognizione) has been elevated to the status of “default track” for all single-judge matters, further compressing timelines and reinforcing the legislature’s drive to replace protracted, sequential litigation with a more concentrated, outcome-oriented procedure.

Collective Redress: The Rise of Class Actions

Perhaps the most significant structural development in Italian civil litigation over the past three years is the significant growth of collective redress. Italy now operates two distinct “opt-in” collective redress mechanisms: (i) the “general” class action (azione di classe), governed by Articles 840-bis et seq. of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure, which has been in force since 19 May 2021, and available to individuals and small and medium enterprises seeking damages, restitution or injunctive relief in respect of violations of “homogeneous individual rights”; and (ii) the “special” representative action for consumers (azione rappresentativa), introduced by Legislative Decree 28/2023, effective from 25 June 2023, which may be initiated only by qualified consumer associations or certain public regulatory bodies (including the Bank of Italy, the Consob, the Italian Competition Authority and the Data Protection Authority), covering infringements of collective consumer interests such as – inter alia – unfair commercial practices, misleading advertising and unfair contractual terms.

As of May 2026, the Ministry of Justice’s public online platform lists 116 collective and representative actions filed since the new framework came into force – confirming that the pace of filings continues unabated.

From a sectoral perspective, the prevailing subject matter of the claims concerns consumer protection law, with a significant concentration in financial services – including actions against banks for failing to reimburse upfront costs upon early loan repayment, for unlawful guarantee clauses, and for misrepresentation of investment and insurance products. Digital services and e-commerce represent a second major area, with online platforms increasingly targeted for failure to deliver goods, unexpected changes in contract terms and misleading commercial practices. A third emerging front involves data protection and health, with cases arising from the mismanagement of sensitive personal data and misleading health-related advertising.

Italian courts are expected to continue refining the requirement of “homogeneous individual rights” beyond traditional commercial contexts, extending collective redress into areas such as fundamental privacy and health rights – sectors in which class action activity is widely expected to accelerate.

AGCM Enforcement and Antitrust Follow-On Litigation

The Italian Competition Authority (AGCM) has maintained an exceptionally vigorous enforcement pace through 2025, with consequences rippling into civil courts through a growing wave of follow-on damages litigation.

The AGCM’s 2025 Annual Report recorded EUR1.4 billion in antitrust sanctions – the highest annual figure in the Authority’s history – with total administrative sanctions exceeding EUR1.46 billion. Enforcement activity encompassed 21 competition investigations (including six cartel and five abuse-of-dominance cases), 70 consumer protection proceedings generating EUR71 million in fines, and 78 advocacy and advisory interventions.

This surge in enforcement is fuelling a corresponding increase in civil court activity. The proportion of AGCM decisions upheld by the administrative judiciary has risen markedly: from 88% to 96% before the Lazio Regional Administrative Court, and from 68% to 83% before the State Council. This increasingly robust evidentiary record makes it harder for defendants to challenge AGCM findings in follow-on proceedings and enhances the attractiveness of damages claims for claimants.

Artificial Intelligence in the Courtroom: A New Frontier of Liability

No overview of Italian civil litigation in 2026 would be complete without addressing artificial intelligence as both a powerful practice management tool and a novel source of procedural liability. Italian courts have recently issued decisions establishing a clear standard: AI may assist, but it cannot certify.

The leading authority is Court of Cassation decision No 11431/2026, which declared a petition inadmissible in part on the basis that its jurisprudential references appeared to be the product of “probable algorithmic hallucination” caused by generative AI. The Supreme Court held that all output of AI tools incorporated in court filings remains subject to the professional duty of review. The principle is clear: technology does not reduce professional responsibility, it intensifies it.

At the regulatory level, the Supreme Council of the Judiciary Order (CSM) issued guidance in 2025 setting out conditions – including algorithmic transparency, output verifiability and continuous human oversight – for AI-assisted tools to be compatible with the administration of justice. At the European level, the EU AI Act (Regulation 2024/1689) classifies the administration of justice as a high-risk sector, triggering enhanced transparency, audit and accountability obligations, some already anticipated in Italian law through Law 132/2025.

Systematic source tracking and independent review of all case law citations are just some of the necessary steps before any AI-assisted content is filed with a court, to mitigate the risk of professional and procedural liability.

Conclusion

The convergence of the above-mentioned developments marks a structural reconfiguration of the Italian litigation environment. What emerges is a judiciary at once more efficient and more exacting: procedural timelines are compressing, access to collective justice is broadening, regulatory sanctions are reaching historic levels, and professional obligations surrounding emerging technologies are being defined with a rigour that admits no ambiguity.