The court is scheduled to hear Case C-194/25, LeoVegas Gaming plc v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni (AGCOM) on July 1 in Luxembourg. While the litigation centers on Italy’s sweeping prohibition on gambling advertising, legal experts say the ruling could establish an important precedent for how European Union member states regulate the promotion of online gambling services.
Italy currently enforces one of Europe’s most restrictive regimes, banning virtually all forms of gambling advertising, from television and radio to digital platforms and social media. LeoVegas Gaming argues that the measure goes beyond a simple advertising restriction and instead constitutes a rule affecting information society services, meaning it should have been notified to the European Commission in advance under Directive 2015/1535. Failure to follow that procedure, the company contends, could render the legislation unenforceable.
The CJEU has been asked to determine whether advertising restrictions targeting online services qualify as “technical regulations” subject to mandatory notification requirements, whether non-compliance with those obligations invalidates national measures, and whether a blanket advertising ban is compatible with the European Union’s fundamental freedoms, including the free movement of services and the freedom of establishment.
The answers could have consequences across the EU. If the court concludes that such restrictions fall within the scope of Directive 2015/1535, governments introducing similar measures would be required to notify Brussels before implementing them. Failure to do so could expose national legislation to legal challenges and prevent its enforcement.
The case is also being closely monitored in Greece, where licensed gambling operators are permitted to advertise but operate under a tightly regulated framework overseen by national authorities. Unlike Italy, Greece has not adopted a comprehensive prohibition on gambling advertising. Nevertheless, any clarification by the CJEU on the limits of national regulatory powers could influence future policy choices and judicial interpretations in the country.
More broadly, the judgment is expected to define how member states balance public health and consumer protection objectives against the principles underpinning the EU’s single market. A finding that blanket advertising bans are disproportionate could restrict governments’ ability to impose broad marketing prohibitions while strengthening the legal protections available to cross-border digital service providers.
Although there is no immediate indication that existing regulatory frameworks in countries such as Greece would be affected, lawyers and industry observers view the case as a potentially landmark decision that could shape the future of gambling advertising regulation throughout the European Union.
