The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is set to rule on case C-421/24, determining whether Google Ireland is liable for illegal gambling promotions hosted on YouTube. The decision centers on whether the YouTube Partner Program (YPP) transforms a neutral hosting provider into a commercial entity responsible for user-generated content under the EU’s E-Commerce Directive.
The AGCOM Dispute Over Gambling Advertisements
The legal battle began on July 19, 2022, when Italy’s communications regulator, AGCOM, fined Google Ireland €750,000. AGCOM ordered the removal of videos promoting gambling sites with cash prizes, citing violations of Article 9 of the “Dignity Decree” (Decree-Law No. 87/2018), which prohibits gambling advertising in Italy. According to AGCOM, the platform could not claim “passive” hosting status because the content creator was part of the YouTube Partner Program (YPP), creating a commercial relationship through shared ad revenue.
AGCOM identified 630 videos across five channels linked to a single creator. The regulator argued that this financial tie meant Google was no longer a neutral intermediary but a commercial partner in the distribution of illegal content.
Legal Arguments: Hosting Immunity vs. Commercial Partnerships
Google challenged the fine, arguing that it is protected by the E-Commerce Directive (2000/31/EC). This directive generally limits the liability of hosting providers for content uploaded by users, provided the platform does not have actual knowledge of the illegal activity. The TAR Lazio court initially agreed with Google and annulled the sanction, leading AGCOM to appeal to the Council of State, which then referred the matter to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling.
Advocate General Maciej Szpunar’s Non-Binding Opinion
On November 27, 2025, Advocate General Maciej Szpunar released his non-binding opinion on the case. Szpunar concluded that YouTube remains a hosting provider under the E-Commerce Directive because its primary function is storing user-uploaded content, not operating gambling services. However, he clarified that this does not exempt member states from applying national laws against gambling ads if a provider actively promotes such activities.
Regarding the YPP commercial link, Szpunar argued that a partnership contract does not automatically strip a platform of its “safe harbor” protections. He stated that a hosting provider can maintain its liability limits under Article 14(1) of the directive as long as the contract doesn’t give the platform “knowledge or control” over the specific content. If the platform gains actual knowledge of a specific illegal video, those protections vanish.
Impact on Digital Platforms and the Digital Services Act
The final ruling will define the boundaries of platform responsibility when hosting restricted promotional content. This case arrives as the Digital Services Act (DSA) has entered into force, updating the rules for intermediary liability and content moderation across the EU.
Comparison: Hosting Provider vs. Commercial Partner
| Perspective | AGCOM Argument | Advocate General Szpunar Opinion |
|---|---|---|
| Role of YPP | Creates a commercial bond that removes neutrality. | Partnership doesn’t automatically negate hosting protections. |
| Liability | Google is responsible for the creator’s ad violations. | Liability triggers only upon “actual knowledge” of illegal content. |
| Legal Status | Commercial entity promoting gambling. | Hosting provider under Directive 2000/31. |
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the “Dignity Decree”?
It is an Italian law (Decree-Law No. 87/2018) that strictly prohibits the advertising of gambling services to protect citizens from gambling addiction.
Why does the YouTube Partner Program (YPP) matter here?
Because YPP involves revenue sharing, regulators argue it changes the relationship from a service provider (YouTube) and a user (Creator) to a business partnership, potentially increasing the platform’s legal responsibility for the content.
Is the Advocate General’s opinion the final law?
No. The Advocate General provides a legal analysis and recommendation. The CJEU judges will issue the final, binding judgment.
Worth a look