AGCOM has formally closed the sanctioning proceedings opened against Kick Streaming Pty Ltd, the Australia-based company operating the live streaming platform Kick, which had been accused of hosting content amounting to direct or indirect gambling advertising in breach of Italy’s so-called “Dignity Decree”.
The decision is contained in Resolution No. 279/25/CONS, adopted by AGCOM’s Board on 19 November 2025, which archives Proceeding No. 2863/ZD (Complaint No. 3/25/DSM).
The case originated from a report by the Guardia di Finanza. In February 2025, the financial police transmitted to AGCOM a detailed note concerning a series of videos published on Kick through an Italian-language channel. According to the report, the content consisted mainly of livestreamed online gambling sessions involving cash prizes, particularly slot machine play, with a strong narrative focus on bonus hunting and the presentation of winnings as the central “entertainment” element.
Investigators also highlighted the use of visual effects and engagement tools typical of digital entertainment — including animations, bright colours, arrows and graphic prompts — designed to keep the audience’s attention high and make the gambling sessions particularly attractive. Another element considered relevant was the circulation, through livestream chat, of links redirecting users to gambling website comparison portals.
Following its initial assessment, in May 2025 AGCOM’s Media Services and Fundamental Rights Directorate formally challenged Kick for a presumed violation of Article 9(1) of Decree-Law 87/2018, converted into Law 96/2018, identifying 19 videos as potentially promotional or advertising-related content.
During the proceedings, Kick denied any direct liability. The company argued that it operates as a global content-sharing platform, where livestreams and chats are entirely produced by users, without any editorial line or direct control exercised by the platform. Kick also stated it had no commercial relationship with the streamer involved, and that it did not generate advertising revenue from the contested videos. The company further maintained that it had no “actual knowledge” of the content prior to receiving the formal notice and that, in any event, it promptly removed the videos and disabled the channel after being notified.
After completing the investigation — including additional fact-finding requested by AGCOM’s Board in October 2025 — the Authority concluded that the legal conditions for imposing sanctions were not met.
AGCOM stressed that the application of the Dignity Decree’s advertising ban requires not only the presence of gambling-related promotional content, but also the ability to attribute responsibility to the platform operator. In Kick’s case, two elements were considered decisive: the absence of specific commercial relationships between Kick and the streamer, and the immediate removal of the content together with the disabling of the channel once the contestation was received.
According to AGCOM, Kick did not obtain direct compensation nor indirect economic benefits linked to the dissemination of the videos, such as sponsorships, advertising revenues or future commercial partnerships. As a result, the platform’s conduct was deemed compatible with that of a passive hosting provider, in line with established European rules and case law.
In its reasoning, AGCOM referred to Article 6 of the Digital Services Act (Regulation EU 2022/2065), which limits the liability of hosting providers where they lack knowledge of illegal content and act promptly to remove or disable access once informed. The Authority also recalled consolidated EU and national jurisprudence, according to which platform liability may arise only where the operator plays an “active role” — implying control or awareness of content — or fails to intervene in a timely manner after notification.
AGCOM also referenced previous comparable cases. In several proceedings, the Authority has archived cases involving platforms that had no commercial links with content creators and removed content after being alerted. By contrast, sanctions were imposed in other cases where partnerships, sponsorships or advertising-related revenues connected to the dissemination of the content were proven.
