Italy’s media watchdog fined Google for YouTube videos advertising gaming sites. This sparks an EU test examining platform legal immunity when user content becomes commercial promotion. YouTube faced scrutiny Thursday regarding its gambling ads hosting practices. EU legal adviser stated platform maintains protection under EU law through a neutral, hands-off content role. Advocate General Maciej Szpunar delivered an opinion to the Court of Justice of the European Union. YouTube’s role remains within the EU’s online services framework if the platform acts as a bystander. The platform must host user videos without shaping or managing attached ads.

A clear distinction exists between a neutral host and a publisher, according to Szpunar. YouTube keeps a legal shield by providing space and technical tools for uploads. Protection vanishes when the platform steers ads, decides appearance, placement or promotion methods. National regulators gain the authority to hold the platform responsible in such cases. AGCOM, Italy’s media regulator, initiated a case after fining Google 750,000 euros (about $869,000). YouTube videos promoted prize-based gaming websites, violating the country’s 2018 gambling and betting promotion ban.

EU Advocate General Backs YouTube in Italy’s Gambling Ads Dispute

Google Ireland operates YouTube across Europe and contested the fine. The company argued the EU’s “country-of-origin” rule means answering to Irish authorities rather than national regulators. Rule keeps online services flowing across borders, preventing digital barriers, Szpunar acknowledged. Gambling services remain excluded from harmonised rules, giving member states restriction powers. Public interest allows countries to impose their own limitations. Italy’s ban cannot reach YouTube automatically unless the platform exceeds simple hosting duties. The platform must become directly involved with disputed ads for liability.

YouTube’s Partner Program became a central debate point, allowing creators to monetise through video ads. Ads run alongside user content using YouTube’s monetisation tools with revenue sharing. Creators receive a portion of the generated advertising income. Italy’s regulator claimed the business model made YouTube an active participant rather than a neutral host. The platform profited from gambling-related promotions, according to AGCOM’s argument. Evidence showed YouTube neither shaped nor selected gambling content, Szpunar countered. The platform essentially hosted videos without directing ads themselves based on file contents.

“The increasing complexity of activities performed by video-sharing platforms makes distinguishing extremely difficult,” Szpunar admitted. Activities influencing content differ from those maintaining neutrality, as the referring court highlighted. YouTube hadn’t crossed that line, according to his assessment. The internal review system checks a small sample of posted videos on creators’ channels. No editing, approving or removal occurs, indicating the platform wasn’t steering carried content.

EU Court Adviser Says YouTube Not Liable for User-Uploaded Ads Under New Rules

Marco Bassini serves as assistant professor of fundamental rights and artificial intelligence at Tilburg Law School. Opinion follows the court’s case law on hosting-provider liability under the E-Commerce Directive closely. The Digital Services Act has since replaced this directive. “The Advocate General concludes neither contractual arrangements nor YouTube Partnership Programme features indicate an active role,” Bassini explained. Google lacked control over content based on analysis. “The mere existence of contractual relationships between service providers and content creators doesn’t differentiate them from users.” Google Ireland and AGCOM didn’t respond immediately to comment requests from reporters.

Judges following his lead would hold YouTube accountable only for directly managed or shaped ads. User or advertiser independent uploads wouldn’t create liability for the platform. National regulators must work through Brussels rather than writing independent rules for tougher regulations. The Court of Justice will deliver a ruling in the coming months regarding this case. Advisers’ views aren’t binding, but judges follow recommendations frequently. The decision could redefine Europe’s platform neutrality and responsibility boundaries for future years.