Ambush Marketing and Milan Cortina 2026: the AGCM’s Criteria in Six New Decisions
In six decisions issued on 7 July 2026, the Italian Competition Authority (AGCM) imposed fines totalling € 2,510,000 on companies that had run promotional campaigns in connection with the Milan Cortina 2026 Winter Olympics without being official sponsors.
The decisions represent the first coordinated, large-scale application of Italy’s ambush marketing rules. They make clear that the risk does not depend solely on the use of Olympic symbols, but on the overall associative effect produced by the campaign and, in some cases, on the company’s internal documentation.
- The regulatory framework
To understand the significance of the decisions, it is useful to outline the legal framework. Ambush marketing – a term coined in the 1980s to describe strategies whereby a company associates itself with a high-profile event without bearing the costs of official sponsorship – can reduce the value of the exclusivity purchased by official sponsors and, indirectly, affect organisers’ ability to monetise the event. Italian law responded with Article 10 of Decree-Law No. 16/2020 (converted into Law No. 31/2020), which prohibits parasitic, fraudulent, misleading or deceptive advertising and marketing activities carried out in relation to national or international sporting or trade fair events, without authorisation from the organisers and with the aim of obtaining an economic or competitive advantage. Unlike earlier ad hoc measures (Law No. 167/2005 for Turin 2006; Decree-Law No. 43/2013 for Expo 2015, which was never implemented), the provision is of general application.
The scope of the offence is broad. The law prohibits: (a) creating a direct or indirect link between a trademark and the event that is liable to mislead the public as to the identity of official sponsors; (b) falsely claiming sponsorship status; (c) unauthorised promotion of one’s own brand in connection with the event; (d) marketing products bearing the event’s logo. As the case analysis below will show, the Authority interprets point (a) expansively: the use of official symbols is not required – a combination of elements (naming, hashtags, images, timing, geographical proximity) that, taken together, create an association with the event may suffice.
Fines range from € 100,000 to € 2,500,000. Enforcement and imposition of fines fall within the AGCM’s remit, with the support of the Guardia di Finanza for inspections.
Depending on the nature of the campaign, the administrative violation may be accompanied by claims relating to trademark infringement, unfair competition under Article 2598 of the Italian Civil Code, and damages sought by official sponsors and the event organiser.
The six decisions of July 2026 represent the first systematic application of Article 10 of Decree-Law No. 16/2020.
- The six decisions
The investigations, initiated following reports by the Guardia di Finanza’s Special Antitrust Unit, concerned six companies with heterogeneous conduct, allowing the Authority’s enforcement criteria to be identified.
Harmont & Blaine – fine of € 500,000. The company had posted content on social media featuring the five Olympic rings and the hashtags #MilanoCortina and #MilanoCortina2026, promoted the “Cortina a colori” capsule collection, and branded the Chalet Tofane near the Olympic slopes. The most significant aspect of the case is the evidentiary use of internal documents seized during the inspection: corporate presentations, emails and briefs expressly linked the initiative to Olympic visibility. The Authority clarified that such documents do not establish the subjective element of the offence, but help to characterise the objective meaning of the conduct and demonstrate that the overlap with the event was not coincidental.
Il Gigante – fine of € 310,000. The company had run the “TecnOlimpiadi” campaign through flyers, billboards, its website and social media, combining the name with images of winter sports and the five-ring symbol, from 15 January to 4 February 2026. The decision shows that the Authority did not assess the wordplay on “Olimpiadi” in isolation, but considered it together with the symbols, images and timing of the campaign.
MD – fine of € 300,000. The company had run the “Inizio dei Giochi Olimpici MD Edition” campaign featuring the Olympic symbol and the hashtags #olimpiadimilanocortina and #Olimpiadi2026 for just three days (6-8 February 2026). The short duration did not preclude liability, but did affect the amount of the fine: limited visibility or brief duration do not make prohibited conduct lawful, but may reduce the penalty.
Butan Gas – fine of € 350,000. The company had posted three items of content on Facebook and Instagram (6, 19 and 23 February 2026) associating sporting values with the company’s mission, with express reference to “MilanoCortina2026” and depiction of Olympic symbols. The case confirms that institutional communications may also fall within the scope of the law when they use the event to transfer its reputation and values to the corporate brand. The absence of hashtags in some content was not considered sufficient to exclude the link.
Oasi – fine of € 500,000. The company had run the “Sconti Olimpici” campaign featuring the five rings, formally valid from 29 January to 11 February 2026. However, some materials were still online during the proceedings. The Authority clarified that the end of the promotion in physical stores does not terminate the offence if content remains accessible on digital channels.
Pro7 – fine of € 550,000. The company had published a social media carousel featuring the five rings, the Olympic flame and the official Games logo, from 6 February to 19 March 2026. This was the highest fine imposed: the use of the official logo constitutes a “particularly significant link” justifying higher penalties even where mitigating factors are present.
- The criteria adopted by the AGCM
A joint reading of the six decisions reveals certain criteria applied by the Authority in assessing conduct.
Establishing an offence does not depend on a single formal element, but on an overall assessment of all elements of the communication: words, images, symbols, hashtags, period of dissemination, media used, promotional strategy, internal documentation. Official symbols (particularly the five rings) are the most obvious indicator, but are not essential: the link may also arise from the event’s name, hashtags, images of sports disciplines, temporal references, or geographical proximity to event venues.
The Authority assesses the entire promotional project, not individual messages. Posts, press releases, flyers, physical displays, local sponsorships and territorial initiatives may be considered together. A campaign apparently built around the territory or winter lifestyle may be reclassified when the evidence shows it was designed to exploit the event’s media attention.
Prompt removal, cooperation with the Authority and limited dissemination affect the amount of the fine, but do not exclude liability for a violation that has already occurred.
- Guidance for businesses
The Milan Cortina 2026 decisions confirm an enforcement approach already established by the Authority.
In 2021, in decision No. 30099 of 30 November 2021, the AGCM fined Zalando SE € 100,000 (the minimum penalty) for a billboard advertisement in Rome during UEFA Euro 2020. The decision was upheld by the Lazio Regional Administrative Court and, on appeal, by the Council of State (Section VI, judgment No. 5 of 2 January 2024), which clarified that the rules protect not only official sponsors but also consumers with respect to transparent and non-misleading commercial communications.
While the Zalando case was a limited application (a single billboard, short duration, minimum fine), the Milan Cortina 2026 decisions mark a step change: six parallel investigations, heterogeneous conduct, significant fines and reasoning that consolidates the law’s enforcement criteria.
The decisions require non-sponsor companies to exercise greater care in planning campaigns linked to major events. Preventive checks cannot be limited to the possible reproduction of registered trademarks or protected symbols: the potential associative effect generated by the communication as a whole must be assessed, even where each individual element, considered in isolation, may appear generic. Checks should cover final materials, naming, hashtags, media plans, timing, territorial initiatives, relationships with businesses near event venues, and communications entrusted to retail outlets or partners.
Internal documentation (briefs, presentations, emails, marketing plans) should transparently describe the campaign’s objectives and the independent reasons for creative choices. Any references to major events should be submitted for legal review in advance, to avoid situations where a lack of coordination between marketing, agencies and the compliance function leads to initiatives that are inconsistent with the rules. Content removal at the end of a promotion should be complete and documented, covering corporate channels, publicly accessible archives and content distributed by retail outlets, agencies, influencers or partners on behalf of the company.
The six decisions show that ambush marketing may include a strategy that, without expressly presenting the company as a sponsor, creates an unauthorised commercial link with the event and exploits its communicative value. For non-sponsor companies, the lesson is clear: the cost of preventive compliance is lower than the risk of penalties.
