For the past few days, a major legal case has been shaking up the world of video platforms: YouTube is at the centre of a ruling that will determine the future of gambling adverts in Europe. At issue are videos promoting online gambling, which are prohibited under the national laws of one member state but broadcast on an international platform.
The origins of the conflict: the Italian ban and sanctions
The starting point for this case can be traced back to Italy. In 2018, the country introduced a general ban on all forms of gambling advertising, including television, radio, online media, sports sponsorship and promotions.
Despite this ban, videos promoting casino sites continued to appear on YouTube. In 2022, the Italian communications authority (AGCOM) fined Google Ireland, the European subsidiary of the group that owns YouTube, €750,000. A year later, with the national ban already in place, Google was fined again for promoting gambling on YouTube, this time to the tune of €2,250,000.
According to AGCOM, participating in the advertising revenue generated by these videos — notably via the monetisation programme for creators, the YouTube Partnership Programme (YPP) — was sufficient to make the platform an active player, rather than a mere host.
Faced with these sanctions, YouTube decided to appeal. The case was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). This week, the Advocate General — Maciej Szpunar — issued a partial opinion in favour of the platform.
In his view, YouTube can only be held liable if it plays an active role in promoting gambling content. However, if it merely hosts independently published videos, it can be exempted. Szpunar justified his position by pointing out the lack of evidence that YouTube had shaped or selected the content in question. He believes that simply sharing revenue with creators through an advertising programme is not enough to establish editorial involvement. Furthermore, the Advocate General acknowledged the growing complexity of video-sharing platforms’ activities — a complexity that sometimes blurs the distinction between passive hosting and active control of content.
A decision with major repercussions
The Advocate General’s opinion is not binding, but in most cases, the Court follows his recommendations. If the CJEU agrees with his opinion, this could mean a significant relaxation of the regulation of gambling advertisements on YouTube in Europe. In this scenario, the platform would only be liable in rare cases where it played an active role — i.e. managed or directly broadcast the content.
According to Marco Bassini, assistant professor of fundamental rights and artificial intelligence at Tilburg Law School, the Advocate General’s interpretation could pave the way for more illegal promotions by creators, while leaving legal responsibility with the individual subscriber, not the platform. But the ruling, which the Court is expected to deliver in the coming months, could also set a crucial precedent — not only for Italy, but also for all European Union Member States facing strict national gambling policies.
This issue does not concern YouTube alone. It is part of a broader movement to regulate online gambling content at the European level. Several countries have already adopted strict legislation, including a total ban on advertising, sponsor banners, and restrictions on certain types of promotions. In addition, the platform has recently tightened its policy on gambling-related content. Since March 2025, YouTube has banned links to uncertified betting sites, logos, screenshots, and promotional mentions, and remains vigilant about videos promising guaranteed winnings. Some videos may now be subject to age restrictions or even removed.
Despite these measures, many voices are concerned: the Advocate General’s opinion could weaken the efforts of national regulators by creating a legal grey area where platforms — as long as they remain passive — escape all responsibility.
The case between YouTube — and by extension Google — and Italy, brought before the CJEU, illustrates the challenges posed by the digital economy to national regulation. It highlights the fragile balance between freedom of expression, platform responsibility and public protection.