LeoVegas Ad Ban Case Puts Italy’s Dignity Decree on EU Clock

The Court of Justice of the European Union heard oral arguments on July 1 in the case between LeoVegas Gaming Plc and Italy’s communications authority AGCOM over the country’s blanket ban on gambling advertising. The case originates from a preliminary reference by Italy’s Council of State, made as part of LeoVegas’ appeal against an AGCOM sanction over TV advertising aired in November 2018.

That oral phase has now closed. The file moves next to the Advocate General, who will present an opinion in the coming months. Only after that opinion will the CJEU set a date for its final ruling.

LeoVegas argues that Article 9 of Italy’s Dignity Decree, which introduced the advertising ban, conflicts with EU law on two grounds. First, the company says Italy should have notified the measure to the European Commission under Directive (EU) 2015/1535, since the ban qualifies as a “technical rule” that affects information society services. Second, the operator says the ban breaches the freedom to provide services and freedom of establishment under EU treaties, and that it is disproportionate to Italy’s stated health and consumer-protection goals.

AGCOM and the Presidency of the Council of Ministers defend the ban as a proportionate measure that serves public health, prevents gambling disorder, and protects consumers.

The Council of State sent three core questions to Luxembourg. The first asks if the advertising ban counts as a technical rule that requires prior notification to Brussels under Directive 2015/1535. The second addresses the consequences of a missed notification: can a private operator invoke that omission before a national court, and does it make the ban unenforceable against them? The third is broader and covers the ban’s compatibility with EU principles such as freedom to provide services, freedom of establishment, proportionality, legal certainty, protection of legitimate expectations, and non-discrimination.

Yet the Council of State’s own referral order did not endorse LeoVegas’ objections. Italian judges noted that Article 9 pursues general-interest goals also recognized under EU law, and cited the social effects of gambling addiction and the risk of over-indebtedness. Even so, the court asked the CJEU to clarify the balance between those national protections and EU market freedoms.

In the end, the CJEU ruling will not decide LeoVegas’ appeal directly. It will interpret EU law, and the case will then return to the Council of State, which must apply that interpretation to the underlying dispute.

💡TGJ Take

The real dispute here is about the notification technicality, not the ad ban itself. If the CJEU finds that Italy should have notified the Dignity Decree’s advertising rule under Directive 2015/1535, and that operators can invoke that failure, years of AGCOM sanctions could become unenforceable. That is a bigger deal than one 2018 TV fine. If Luxembourg sides with AGCOM instead, Italy’s ad restrictions gain firmer legal cover before the final ruling. Until the Advocate General’s opinion lands, Italian-facing operators and affiliates should treat this case as a compliance watch item, not a signal to test the ban.