The AGCM “Sportitalia” Case: Clickbaiting as an Unfair Commercial Practice
In a landmark ruling, decision No. 31995 of 9 June 2026 (Case No. PS13016), the Italian competition Authority ( “AGCM”) has, for the first time in Italy, classified a “clickbaiting” practice as an unfair commercial practice within the meaning of Legislative Decree No. 206/2005 (the “Consumer Code”).
The sanctioned conduct was perpetrated by Italia Sport Communication S.r.l. (“ISC”), publisher of the online news website www.sportitalia.it.
- The Contested Practice
The term clickbaiting denotes a content creation and presentation technique predicated upon the deployment of sensationalist headlines featuring superlatives and emotionally charged language, conveying incomplete or ambiguous information, and frequently accompanied by provocative visual imagery.
This technique is widely employed by online platforms and news outlets to exploit user curiosity, thereby driving traffic to a given website and, in turn, enhancing the economic value derived from user engagement—including through the harvesting of personal data and the generation of advertising revenue.
In the instant case, the Authority identified a substantial body of articles bearing headlines calculated to promise exclusive or particularly grave disclosures, yet which, upon access, proved devoid of content consistent with the expectations so engendered.
By way of illustration, the Decision cites an article entitled “Sinner Takes a Hit, Doesn’t Come Out Looking Good: Out of the Top 10.” (in Italian ““Batosta Sinner, non ne esce bene: fuori dalla Top 10”” It was only upon extended scrolling that the reader could discern that the tennis player had not in fact fallen from the ATP top ten, but rather from a separate ranking of the ten players who had spent the longest period at number one. Further headlines alluded to “scandals,” “mysteries,” “accusations,” or “damning evidence,” whilst the accompanying articles concerned no more than innocuous statements, mundane occurrences, or trivial anecdotes relating to sportspersons.
The Authority further observed that the contested practice was not confined to the mere incongruity between headline and content. The articles were also characterized by a narrative structure designed progressively to pique the reader’s curiosity and defer delivery of the promised disclosure, together with a conspicuous fragmentation of the text, interspersed with numerous advertisements, photographs, and videos.
The confluence of misleading headlines, fragmented text, and advertising placements was thus apt to retain readers on the site for longer than necessary, thereby inflating traffic, page impressions, and prospective advertising revenues.
In practice, readers enticed by the headline were induced to scroll through the article in pursuit of the promised revelation, while being exposed to a succession of advertisements. The extended dwell time on the site also facilitated a more extensive collection of data via cookies, capable of being exploited for commercial and profiling purposes.
- Legal Framework and the AGCM’s Findings
In its defence, ISC contended, in essence, that the use of emphatic language fell within ordinary journalistic practice; that the articles were freely accessible and did not entail any transactional decision; that a portion of the content had been produced by third parties; and that the conduct was of marginal scope and limited economic significance.
The AGCM rejected these submissions.
In the AGCM’s analysis, the conduct attributable to ISC is properly assimilated to so-called dark patterns—namely, practices which, through manipulation of the digital interface and the architecture of user choices, are liable to undermine consumer autonomy and impair freedom of decision-making.
In the context of clickbaiting, the distortion arises from the combined deployment of sensationalist headlines, fragmentation of content, and positioning of the substantive disclosure only after repeated scrolling, during which the user is exposed to advertising.
To this must be added the material implications for personal data protection: personal data have acquired an increasingly significant economic value in the digital environment—a proposition long acknowledged in case law.
The AGCM’s Decision expressly relies upon the European Commission’s Guidelines on the interpretation and application of Directive 2005/29/EC (the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive). 2005/29/EC. According to such Guidelines the concept of “commercial practice” encompasses conduct designed to capture the consumer’s attention and to induce decisions such as continuing to use a service, scrolling through content, viewing an advertisement, or clicking on a hyperlink.
A consumer’s transactional decision is not, therefore, confined to the acquisition of goods or services. It may equally extend to the choice to engage with one service rather than another, to access particular content, or to devote a given amount of time to its consumption.
Viewed in this light, clickbaiting may be characterized as conduct capable of materially distorting the economic behaviour of the average consumer, thereby constituting both a misleading and an aggressive commercial practice, as well as a breach of the standard of professional diligence.
In effect, the user not only expends time in search of the advertised information, but is also exposed to advertising content and yields a greater volume of data than would have been the case had the headline accurately reflected the substance of the article. From this vantage point, free access does not preclude the existence of a consumer relationship. In the digital environment, the economic consideration furnished by the user may equally comprise time, attention, and personal data.
The AGCM emphasised that the proceedings did not concern the mere deployment of emphatic language, nor the veracity of the reporting from a purely editorial standpoint. Rather, the gravamen of the complaint resided in the overarching strategy employed by the publisher to ensnare consumers and retain them on the site in disregard of the informational expectations aroused by the headlines, thereby maximising traffic and advertising revenue.
The Authority further observed that a publisher retains a duty of supervision and control over content published on its website, even where such content is authored by third parties. The outsourcing of article production did not, therefore, suffice to exonerate ISC from liability.
- Sanction and Wider Implications
In conclusion, the AGCM classified ISC’s conduct as an unfair commercial practice in breach of Articles 20, 21, 24, and 25(1)(c) of the Consumer Code, and levied a fine of EUR 50,000.
The significance of this Decision transcends the facts of the individual case, marking a notable advance in the progressive extension of consumer protection to the distinctive dynamics of the digital environment.
The Decision demonstrates that content which is ostensibly editorial in character may nonetheless fall within the ambit of unfair commercial practices legislation where the manner of its presentation is designed to attract and retain users, thereby conferring an economic benefit upon the trader.
Situated within an evolving regulatory landscape, the AGCM’s Decision is not to be regarded as an isolated instance, but rather as consonant with the mounting institutional attention at European level to deceptive or manipulative interfaces, to data-centric digital business models, and, more broadly, to practices liable to compromise the decisional autonomy of online consumers.
