CJEU Rules Google May Be Liable for Gambling Ads on YouTube Partner Channels

Core Ruling

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has ruled that Google cannot automatically claim liability exemption for gambling advertisements uploaded to YouTube by content creators with whom it has a commercial partnership. The judgment, delivered on July 16, stems from a 2020 fine of €750,000 (approximately $854,000–$860,000) imposed by Italy’s communications regulator, AGCOM, over videos promoting online gambling on five YouTube channels. The regulator also ordered Google to remove 630 videos and similar content. Google appealed the penalty, arguing that EU telecoms rules shielded it from responsibility for third-party uploads, prompting an Italian administrative court to seek guidance from the CJEU.

The CJEU clarified that online platforms can avoid liability only when they act as "an intermediary service provider carrying out a strictly technical, automated and passive activity, excluding any knowledge or control over the information which is transmitted or stored." The court added that this exemption does not apply when an operator reviews a channel’s main theme, most viewed or newest videos, and associated metadata for the purpose of concluding a commercial partnership contract. Since Google reviews channels before admitting them to its YouTube Partner Program—which allows creators to share advertising revenue—the judges found that the company could not reasonably claim ignorance of the content’s focus on gambling.

Implications for Platforms

The decision may have far-reaching consequences for social media companies across Europe. Big Tech firms have frequently relied on the liability exemption to resist regulatory efforts to hold them accountable for user-generated content, particularly amid growing concerns about the impact of social media on children. AGCOM has also fined X over gambling ads, indicating a broader regulatory push. The CJEU’s ruling signals that platforms cannot simply claim neutrality once they acquire detailed knowledge of illegal content through their own commercial arrangements.

Importantly, the court distinguished between passive hosting and active involvement. Judges noted that platforms do not lose protection simply because users report illegal material or automated tools flag suspicious content. However, when a platform reviews content as part of a partnership agreement—as Google did with YouTube Partner channels—it crosses a line. The court stated: "Where the activity of the operator of an online platform results in it knowing the essential content uploaded by a user to that platform, it cannot rely on the exemption from liability."

Expert Analysis

Legal scholars highlighted that the CJEU parted ways with Advocate General Maciej Szpunar, who viewed Google’s pre-partnership checks as a routine eligibility review. The court instead saw those checks as sufficient evidence of knowledge about the channels’ gambling theme. Marco Bassini, an assistant professor at Tilburg Law School, warned that this reasoning could create a "perverse" incentive for platforms to reduce compliance checks to avoid gaining knowledge, potentially undermining the Digital Services Act’s goal of encouraging proactive investigation of unlawful content.

Oreste Pollicino, a professor at Bocconi University, noted that the judgment shifts focus from formal labels to actual platform operations. "The relevant threshold is not a generic awareness that unlawful activities may occur online, but specific knowledge of the essential content of the advertisements concerned," he said. Martin Husovec of the London School of Economics added that the court appears to be expanding the notion of knowledge, opening a new front of controversy alongside existing debates on neutrality and scope of application.

Next Steps

The Italian Council of State (formerly the Lazio administrative court) will now reassess the case based on the CJEU’s guidance. A Google spokesperson stated: "We are carefully reviewing the text of the ruling." The judgment is final and cannot be appealed. The case is registered as C-421/24 AGCOM (Online gambling).