While the process of the Agcom Guidelines struggles to materialize, the Dignity decree bounces around the courts and clashes with the reorganization decree of online gaming. Here is what is happening now.
Everything to be redone, or almost, for the advertising of the game with cash prizes. After the push from Agcom in recent months, with the (concrete) intention of drafting a new version of the (now outdated) guidelines interpreting the infamous Dignity decree, alongside that of the government (which, indeed, is much less concrete) that intended to rewrite the primary regulation – or at least supersede it – to reopen sponsorships in favor of sports, to date everything has become stalled in the nets of bureaucracy and in the nerves of jurisprudence. In reality, it must be said, that of the Communications Authority was much more than a mere intention, having worked on a first draft of the determination for updating the Guidelines, bringing it to the Council: only to then clash with the lack of will (perhaps also flavored – here too – by some ideology) of some members, which forced the discussion to be postponed to the following months. To then find themselves today with the jurisprudence that, in the meantime, has continued on its course, bringing the Italian case of gambling advertisements to the European Court of Justice. With the scare that, at this point, some incompatibilities with European law could be revealed that might lead to the non-application of the Italian law. All the more so in light of the failure to notify the 2018 regulation to the European Commission: as had already emerged several months ago, during the debate, precisely with Agcom, within the Ige in Rome.
Despite the widespread desire in the industry to review the absurd decree from the Movimento 5 Stelle to reopen the possibilities of sponsorship for gaming companies, the idea of returning to the origins without any restrictions on advertising possibilities now seems disastrous. With the risk of facing a wild oversaturation of gaming brands, especially in light of the newly released online concessions, which undeniably require the necessity to promote new brands. And not just those. However, upon closer inspection, an impactful ruling from the European Court could prove to be decisive, as it could effectively compel the Italian legislator to intervene in the matter, thereby overcoming the various embarrassments that have until now prevented any legislation on the subject, despite the obvious need, regardless of the perspective from which one wishes to view the matter and direct the solution.
In the meantime, however, the central regulator of games also wants to have a say, that is, the Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli (the italian gaming regulator), which, without wanting (or having) to replace the Communications Authority, could still provide some useful clarifications to the operators, within the activities proposed by the special Unit – indicated by theAgenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli, che senza volersi (né doversi) sostituire all’Autorità delle comunicazioni, potrebbe comunque fornire qualche chiarimento utile agli operatori, all’interno delle attività proposte dall’Unità speciale – indicata dal Direttore dei giochi Mario Lollobrigida nel suo ultimo intervento pubblico – whose task will be to focus on the interpretation of article 15 of legislative decree n.41: that is, the one concerning the reorganization of online gaming, through which – as is known – the possibility of advertising gaming has been reintroduced but only with the logic of promoting responsible gaming. The article of law, in fact, is much broader and more articulated and allows (imposes) online gaming concessionaires to invest at least one million euros per year for responsible gaming communication activities: which does not mean, therefore, merely to advertise (on the contrary!), but it is clear that communication campaigns fall within the application of the rule. And the intention of Adm is precisely to provide guidelines to industry professionals to better interpret certain mandates, overcoming the various misunderstandings and multiple concerns that have emerged so far. In this sense, therefore, the issue of advertising and promotion of gaming (responsibly) will also be addressed, awaiting further developments: which could be the contribution of Agcom, or that of the courts. We shall see.
