With judgment no. 3118 dated 11 April 2025, the Italian Council of State addressed, for the first time, the practical application of the rules on ambush marketing introduced by Law Decree no. 16/2020 (“Urgent measures for the organization and execution of the Milan-Cortina 2026 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games and the ATP Finals in Turin 2021–2025, as well as provisions on parasitic advertising”), which established a new layer of public enforcement by the Italian Competition and Market Authority (“AGCM” or “Authority”) in an area traditionally handled by the civil courts. The Court confirmed the fine issued by the Authority against Zalando for its advertising campaign during UEFA Euro 2020.
The Case
On 29 March 2022, the AGCM fined Zalando EUR 100.000 for placing a large billboard (shown below) in Rome, near the official UEFA Football Village during Euro 2020. The advertisement was not authorized by UEFA, and Zalando was not among the official sponsors.

Although the advertisement contained no direct references to the event, the AGCM considered it misleading. It depicted a white football jersey with Zalando’s logo, surrounded by the flags of the 24 participating nations, along with the claim “Who will be the winner?”. According to the Authority, these visual elements were capable of creating a false impression that Zalando was an official sponsor, falling within the definition of ambush marketing under Article 10 of Law Decree no. 16/2020.
Zalando challenged the decision before the Regional Administrative Court (“TAR”) of Lazio, which upheld the AGCM’s decision. The company then filed an appeal with the Council of State, which rejected it in full.
A machine translation of the decision is available here, whilst the Italian original is available here.
A danger-based offense and the “framing effect”
The administrative judges clarified that the scope of Article 10 goes beyond the unauthorized use of official logos or names. It also covers any content that, even indirectly, can mislead the public about the relationship existing between the advertiser and the organizer of the event, giving the impression that a relationship of sponsorship exists. This is a danger-based administrative offense: what matters is whether the message, considering both its content and context, is likely to cause confusion.
To support its conclusion, the Council of State drew on the concept of the so-called “framing effect” from cognitive psychology, according to which decisions can be significantly influenced by the context in which a particular message is presented to its addressees, or by the way in which a series of alternatives is structured. In this case, the combination of elements characterizing the advertisement – such as the soccer jersey, the proximity to the Football Village, and the slogan used – created a “framing effect” likely to mislead the public into believing that Zalando was one of the event’s official sponsors.
The broader framework disciplining ambush marketing in Italy
The decision of the Council of State also underlines that, under Italian law, ambush marketing is not only relevant from the perspective of public enforcement by the AGCM – through the new legislation set forth in Law Decree No. 16/2020 – but also from the traditional perspective of civil enforcement through the civil courts. The rules on unfair competition, trademark protection and consumer protection aim at protecting consumers and competitors from deceptive practices and safeguard the value of official sponsorships.
The Council of State also emphasized that, in relation to parasitic advertising, the civil courts have developed a consistent body of case law (for one of the first precedents in the area, handled by our firm, see here) and identified three main forms of ambush marketing:
- Ambush by association: when there is a risk of creating an association between the brand and the event;
- Ambush by intrusion: in cases of unauthorized presence of the brand at or near the venue;
- Opportunistic marketing: when the unauthorized advertiser tries to exploit the media exposure associated with specific moments of the official event for visibility.
In all instances, ambush marketing is considered deceptive because it misleads the average consumer about the existence of a relationship of sponsorship or affiliation.
Freedom of expression
Zalando claimed that the fine issued by the AGCM infringed its freedom of expression. The Court rejected this argument, stating that the legality of advertising depends not just on the message, but also on the context in which it is displayed. The same advertisement, placed elsewhere, might not have raised issues.
The regulation, the judges stressed, strikes a fair balance between fundamental rights (such as freedom of expression) and the need to protect the investments of official sponsors.
A new layer of risk for campaign planners and a new enforcement tool for official sponsors and event organizers
The judgment sends a strong signal: without prior authorization, even a seemingly neutral campaign can cross the line into unlawful advertising if the context makes it misleading for the public.
Brands planning campaigns around high-profile events – including the 2026 Milan-Cortina Winter Olympics – must tread carefully. The new discipline established by Law Decree no. 16/2020 sets a new layer of risk, with the possibility of significant fines (in the range between EUR 100.000 and 2,5 million) issued by the AGCM in addition to the traditional risk of civil remedies.
Importantly, these new rules are generally applicable (ambush marketing is broadly defined and the new rules apply in the context of any “sporting or trade fair event”) and increase the need of reviewing the compliance of any advertising campaign planned in conjunction with such events, to ensure that risk is minimized.
On the other hand, official sponsors and event organizers now have an additional layer to seek protection, possibly in parallel with urgent enforcement before the civil courts. Enforcement strategies will need to be tuned to the specific needs, leveraging the advantages of the various enforcement options.
In all instances, in the new environment clients will require outside counsel teams well versed in both civil litigation and public enforcement before the AGCM.