Practices Archives - Studio Legale De Berti Jacchia Franchini Forlani

ITALY’S AI RULES REACH THE COURTROOM: LITIGATION TOOLS, CORPORATE RISKS AND JUDICIAL FUNCTION AND INDEPENDENCE

team valletta — Mon, 02 Nov 2026 15:33:30 +0000

Italy’s latest AI legislation gives claimants new ways to obtain evidence and exposes companies to additional criminal and compliance risks. It also raises a harder question for the courts to address: what happens if AI does more than help write a judgment and actually contributes to shaping the judge’s reasoning?+

At a glance. Italy has strengthened the tools available in disputes over AI-related harm, including access to technical records and a rebuttable presumption of causation in certain cases involving breaches of the EU AI Act. It has also introduced new criminal offences and potential corporate liability. Meanwhile, the courts face an unresolved question: if AI contributes to an assessment that only a judge may make, what happens to the judgment?

Italy’s AI rules: three measures, different deadlines

The EU AI Act provides the common framework. But anyone advising a business or conducting litigation in Italy also needs to consider the country’s own implementing legislation.

Three recent measures deserve particular attention:

Law No. 132/2025 sets out Italy’s general principles for AI, including strict limits on its use in judicial decision-making.
Legislative Decree No. 160/2026, in force since 30 September 2026, introduces new rules for damages claims and extends certain criminal offences and corporate liability risks.
Legislative Decree No. 179/2026, in force since 23 October 2026, identifies the supervisory authorities, sets out enforcement powers and sanctions, and provides for regulatory sandboxes (supervised settings in which AI systems can be tested) and training.

The dates need to be read together, not as a single AI Act deadline.

Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 has deferred in time much of the AI Act’s framework for high-risk systems. The relevant Chapter III requirements will generally apply from 2 December 2027 to systems covered by Article 6(2) and Annex III (including certain AI tools used in justice), and from 2 August 2028 to systems covered by Article 6(1) and Annex I (AI linked to specified regulated products). Article 6(5) remains subject to a specific exception.

Separate transitional rules apply to certain systems already in use. These changes do not suspend the AI Act as a whole, nor do they affect Article 15 of Italy’s AI Law, which reserves judicial decisions to the judge. In any damages claim based on an AI Act breach, the first step is therefore to identify the obligation allegedly breached and check that it applied at the relevant time. A new domestic remedy cannot bring forward an EU obligation that has been deferred.

Civil litigation: how claimants can obtain AI evidence

In AI-related damages litigation, a claimant may have a prima facie claim but little insight into how the system worked. The records are often held by the provider (the organisation developing or placing the system on the market), the deployer (the organisation using it), or another third party. Articles 16(1) and 17 of Decree 160/2026 seek to address that imbalance. In contractual and non-contractual damages proceedings, the court may order disclosure of specifically relevant information where the claimant produces facts and supporting material making the claim plausible, including a plausible connection between the output and the alleged harm. This is a remedy available within proceedings that are pending, not a general right to inspect a system before suing.

The evidence may include system logs (records of the system’s activity), risk-management files, technical documents and records of human oversight. Disclosure must be proportionate and protect confidential information and trade secrets. Refusal to comply can have different consequences. Under Article 116 of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure, the court may draw adverse inferences from a party’s conduct. Where a party unjustifiably withholds the documents specifically covered by Article 17(2), the court must, after assessing the other evidence, treat the claimant’s alleged facts as admitted. A non-compliant third party may instead face a fine of EUR 1,500 to EUR 10,000, which may or may not for practical purposes operate as a deterrent.

Claims based on an applicable AI Act obligation benefit from a further rule. Under Articles 16(2) and 18, the causal connection between the breach and the loss is presumed, subject to proof of the contrary. The wording leaves the true question open: how much evidence of causation must the claimant provide for starters to trigger the presumption? Requiring full proof would defeat the purpose of the presumption mechanism. The rule does not presume that an infringement occurred or that a loss was suffered, and does not make AI providers automatically liable for every harmful output (no strict liability principle) Conversely, Article 19 confirms that compliance with the regulatory framework, even if certified, does not in itself rule out liability.

Article 20 also permits a direct claim against the allegedly responsible party’s liability insurer, up to the policy limits. The insurer can invoke contractual defences arising before the loss, and the allegedly responsible party must be joined in the proceedings. The direct claim is subject to the same limitation period as the claim against that party. A claimant may request insurance details, which must be supplied within 30 days, but need not make that request before issuing proceedings. The decree does not impose compulsory AI insurance or broaden the terms of an existing policy. Separately, Article 16(4) gives consumers an additional choice of court based on where they live or are domiciled.

These rules sit alongside existing routes to compensation, including Article 82 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and product liability. The revised EU Product Liability Directive (Directive (EU) 2024/2853) expressly covers software, including AI systems. At the date of writing, the Italian measures implementing that directive were still at the draft stage (Government Act No. 434). Italy must transpose it into national law by 9 December 2026. Under the corrected EU text, its scope concerns products placed on the market or put into service from that date, rather than simply losses occurring afterwards.

Criminal offences and the company’s compliance model

The new legislation also matters outside the civil courts, particularly for businesses developing or using high-risk AI.

Article 12 of Decree 160/2026 adds Article 437-bis to the Italian Criminal Code. It targets specified failures to put in place technical safeguards or human oversight (people able to monitor and intervene in a system’s operation), as well as certain unlawful changes to high-risk systems, where the conduct creates danger to life, safety or State security identified by the statute. The required state of mind of the wrongdoer differs between offences: the gross-negligence provision applies to conduct under the first paragraph, while a professional user’s failure to provide human oversight is punishable only if intentional. An AI compliance shortcoming is therefore not automatically a criminal offence. Equally, deferred EU compliance dates do not per se produce immunity: liability depends on the conduct, the person responsible, the obligation applicable at the relevant time and the danger created.

The decree moreover amends Legislative Decree No. 231/2001, Italy’s chief legislation on corporate administrative liability for specified offences committed in an entity’s interest or for its benefit. New Article 25-vicies includes Article 437-bis and the unlawful dissemination of certain AI-generated or altered content under Criminal Code Article 612-quater. The respective monetary sanctions range from 600 to 1,000 and from 200 to 700 ‘quotas’ (statutory units used to calculate a company’s financial penalty); certain disqualification measures may also apply. A criminal offence does not automatically make the company liable: the statutory attribution rules must still be met. Businesses should review their organisational and compliance model under Decree 231 (commonly called the ‘Model 231’) and, above all, check whether the controls work in real life: who authorises changes to AI systems, who supervises their operation and how incidents are reported and escalated.

Supervision: who does what in Italy?

Decree 179/2026 allocates responsibility principally between two national agencies. AgID (Agenzia per l’Italia Digitale, Italy’s Digital Agency) is the ‘notifying authority’: it oversees the procedures for designating and monitoring the bodies that assess whether AI systems comply with the rules. Conversely, ACN (Agenzia per la Cybersicurezza Nazionale, Italy’s National Cybersecurity Agency) is the principal ‘market-surveillance authority’, responsible for monitoring compliance and exercising inspection and enforcement powers. Financial regulators and the Italian Data Protection Authority retain their respective roles. The decree also covers penalties, supervised AI testing environments (‘regulatory sandboxes’) and training, including for the justice system. Although it entered into force on 23 October 2026, not every sanction became applicable on that date; enforcement still depends on when the underlying EU obligation or prohibition takes effect.

For a company operating in Italy, the practical question is not simply whether it is ‘AI Act compliant’. It is which rules apply to its particular system, which regulator oversees its activities and when each obligation becomes enforceable.

When judges use AI: where does assistance become substitution?

A different, and potentially even more critical, issue arises when the user of AI is the judge.

Article 15(1) of Law No. 132/2025 reserves to the judge all decisions about the interpretation and application of law, the assessment of facts and evidence, and the adoption of judicial measures. This provision does not use the word ‘delegation’. The real question is whether the judicial assessment was the judge’s own, not merely whether the judge signed the finall text. At the same time, considering an AI-generated suggestion is not, by itself, proof that the judicial function was surrendered. Article 15(3) separately makes experimentation and use of AI in ordinary judicial offices subject to Ministry of Justice authorisation under the transitional arrangements.

The Consiglio Superiore della Magistratura (CSM, Italy’s High Council for the Judiciary and the judiciary’s self-governing body) addressed this boundary in its recommendations last updated on 22 July 2026. The recommendations envisage controlled support, including language editing and structured analysis of case materials, but clearly rule out generating the operative part of a judgment (the section stating the court’s order) or entrusting AI with drafting judicial decisions. They also expressly restrict unauthorised tools. Breaching those operational rules is not necessarily the same as unlawfully delegating an assessment under Article 15, and neither automatically establishes that the judgment is void. The CSM recommendations address ordinary judicial offices; whilst Italy’s tax courts have a separate institutional framework.

Two recent decisions illustrate why the distinction matters.

In Order No. 182/2026, published on 23 July 2026, the Cagliari Court of Appeal dealt with an application to suspend enforcement of a first-instance judgment while an appeal was pending (Oristano judgment No. 178/2026). A chatbot-style instruction had accidentally been left within the judgment. The appeal court treated it as an indication that AI had assisted with drafting, but not, on its own, as proof that the judge had unduly entrusted interpretation, evaluation or the very decision itself to the system. The court ordered a partial stay for reasons relating to damages, not the AI complaint, and did not decide the merits of the appeal. A similar chatbot artefact was reported in a Palermo first-instance tax judgment (No. 981/2026, Section 11, deposited on 17 February); that incident did not resolve whether AI involvement invalidates a judgment.

What matters is not who typed the words. Asking for a system to improve the style of reasoning already reached by the judge is different from asking it to weigh evidence, choose an interpretation or provide the decisive assessment. But ‘influence’ alone is too broad a test: submissions from counsel, legal research and precedents routinely influence judges. The issue is whether the judge independently considered and evaluated the relevant materials, or allowed AI instead to carry out part of the assessment that the law reserves to the court.

If AI crosses the line, is the judgment invalid?

Article 15 does not expressly say what happens to a judgment if the statutory boundary is crossed.

The summary analysis that follows concerns civil proceedings; criminal and tax cases have their own rules of challenge.

Some mistakes associated with AI already fit familiar grounds of appeal: made-up precedents, factual findings with no support in the case file, failure to decide a claim, or a statement of reasons that is merely apparent (words are given, but they do not explain the decision). None follows automatically from finding a chatbot phrase in a judgment. The harder case is a coherent, well-reasoned text where reliable evidence nevertheless shows that an essential assessment came from AI and was adopted without independent judicial scrutiny.

It has been argued that this is a defect in the formation of the judicial decision itself, not simply in its drafting. But Italian civil procedure places limits on how the nullity of a judgment can be established. Article 156 of the Code of Civil Procedure generally requires a statutory basis for nullity arising from a defect of form, while also recognising defects that prevent an act from fulfilling its essential purpose. Treating proven AI substitution as such a defect would, though, require a further interpretative step, as Article 15 does not expressly make the judgment void. In Criminal Cassation judgment No. 34481/2025, the Supreme Court emphasized the judge’s indispensable independent evaluation in a case involving reasoning drawn from investigative material. That principle is relevant, but the Court did not rule on an AI-generated judgment or establish a new ground of civil nullity.

A further obstacle comes from the Court of Cassation’s Grand Chamber (the Supreme Court in its highest formation for resolving important legal questions of principle). In judgment No. 642/2015, concerning civil and tax proceedings, the Court held that reproducing a party’s arguments does not in itself invalidate a judgment if the reasons are clear, complete and capable of sharing by the judge. Judges are not required to write every sentence from scratch. The analogy with AI is imperfect, however: an algorithmic text could introduce facts or authorities that were never part of the case, raising separate concerns about evidence and the parties’ opportunity to rebut it. The point remains that an appeal should identify a real defect in judicial evaluation or procedure, rather than rely solely on the origin of the wording.

Legal inexistence (inesistenza giuridica) is a different and much more exceptional case, occurring when the purported judgment is so fundamentally defective that it cannot properly be treated as a judicial act. Under Article 161 of the Code of Civil Procedure, defects in judgments must ordinarily be raised through the available lines of appeal and within the appllicable deadlines; the absence of the judge’s signature is an express exception to that rule. Cassation Order No. 9910/2021 deals with this exceptional category and recalls cases where the reasons and operative ruling related to a different dispute entirely. It did not address AI. Arguing that a judgment genuinely issued and signed by the competent judge is legally inexistent because AI was misused would therefore require a much stronger justification than the mere discovery of an AI-generated passage. Nor could such an allegation be assumed to bypass ordinary appeal deadlines.

The remaining challenge: how could it be proved?

The prompts (instructions given to the system), source materials, AI outputs and revision history could help reconstruct what a judge asked the system to do. They would not necessarily show whether the judge later tested the response, discarded parts of it or reached an independent assessment. Obtaining these records would also require a lawful procedural basis. Article 17 of Decree 160/2026 permits targeted disclosure in AI damages claims; it does not create a general right to inspect a judge’s deliberations. In practice, the parties are more likely to start with the judgment and the case file, to look for invented citations, factual assertions without evidential support, or overlook objections or reasoning unrelated to the dispute. These may justify further scrutiny provided the available tools are still capable of resort, but do not automatically prove unlawful delegation of the jurisdictional function to a machine.

For businesses, the immediate task is to understand what records their AI systems generate, preserve relevant evidence where a dispute is reasonably anticipated and document how human oversight works in practice, while respecting confidentiality and data-protection requirements. For litigators, the stronger approach is to identify the assessment allegedly made by AI, explain why it mattered to the outcome and connect it to a recognised ground of appeal within the applicable time limits. In the end, the central question is not whether AI helped produce the words of the judgment, but whether the judgment itself remained the judge’s own.

Download the article.

The post ITALY’S AI RULES REACH THE COURTROOM: LITIGATION TOOLS, CORPORATE RISKS AND JUDICIAL FUNCTION AND INDEPENDENCE appeared first on Studio Legale De Berti Jacchia Franchini Forlani.

EU KIDS ACT. PROTECTION OF CHILDREN ONLINE AND IN THE DIGITAL WORLD

team valletta — Mon, 02 Nov 2026 15:29:22 +0000

According to Flash Eurobarometer 584, “EU Challenges and Priorities“, nearly two-thirds of European Union citizens (63%) believe it is necessary to introduce European rules that restrict minors’ access to social media, with the aim of protecting them from phenomena such as addiction, cyberbullying, and harmful content^[1]. The issue, however, is not limited to Europe. In recent years, in fact, several countries around the world have adopted, or are considering, measures aimed at restricting minors’ access to social media platforms.

Australia was among the first countries to take decisive action, introducing a ban on access to social media for those under 16 at the end of 2025. Similar measures have also been adopted in Malaysia and Indonesia. China, by contrast, has chosen a different approach: not a blanket ban, but the introduction of a “minors’ mode” — a system of restrictions applied at the device and individual app level that limits usage time according to age group. In Turkey and the United Arab Emirates, restrictions have been introduced for those under 15, while in Brazil a law requires users under 16 to link their account to that of a holder of parental responsibility or a legal guardian.

Significantly, in the United States, there is currently no federal regulation equivalent to a blanket ban on minors’ access to social media. The issue is, however, the subject of substantial litigation. In August 2026, a coalition of state attorneys general reached a settlement in proceedings brought against Meta, as part of an action that challenged, among other things, Facebook and Instagram’s use of mechanisms considered suitable for encouraging compulsive usage behavior among minors, as well as the collection of data from users under 13 without the necessary parental consent.

In Europe too, the debate has given rise to a series of national initiatives, albeit characterized by different approaches. In the United Kingdom, in June, former Prime Minister Starmer announced the intention to introduce a ban on social media access for those under 16. The related bill also provides for age verification systems using tools such as facial scanning or the presentation of an identity document. In Portugal, in February 2026, a ban on social media access for children under 13 was approved, while parental consent would be required for those between 13 and 16. In Denmark, a cross-party political agreement was reached to introduce a ban on social media access for those under 15, while allowing parents to authorize it from age 13; the implementing legislation is still awaited. In Spain, former Prime Minister Sánchez had announced the intention to ban social media access for those under 16. The proposal also featured a particularly significant element: the provision for criminal liability for the top executives of platforms that fail to remove illegal content. The measure is not expected to be approved before the end of 2026, but the current political crisis in Spain could delay or call the initiative into question. In Germany, a parliamentary committee is examining the feasibility of blocking social media access for children under 14. In Norway, meanwhile, a public consultation has concluded on a system that aims to set the minimum age for access at 15, requiring the use of BankID, the national digital identity system, for age verification.

France had also moved toward a similar system: Parliament had definitively approved a ban on social media access for those under 15, but the measure was subsequently struck down by the Conseil constitutionnel, which censured Article 1, concerning precisely that ban. According to the Conseil, the measure constituted a disproportionate interference with the freedom of expression and communication of minors under 15 and did not offer sufficient safeguards in terms of privacy protection in the age verification process.

In Italy, the political debate on the protection of minors online remains open. Several bills have been introduced in Parliament addressing, in different ways, the minimum age for independent registration on social media — proposing thresholds of 13 or 15 — as well as the introduction of parental control systems, the protection of minors exposed to risks in the digital environment, and platform liability.

The picture emerging at the international level is therefore characterized by numerous but fragmented initiatives, many of which are still in the drafting stage or have not yet resulted in definitive legislation. It is precisely in this context that the European Union has chosen a different path: rather than simply introducing an age threshold for access to social media, it is taking a broader approach to the architecture of digital services and the ways in which they are designed and offered to minors. It is in this perspective that the EU Kids Act fits, presented by the European Commission on September 17, 2026, with the aim of defining a harmonized European framework for the protection of minors in the digital environment^[2].

According to the Commission, one of the main elements of the proposal concerns access to social media. Minors will be able to independently create a social media account starting at age 15. Starting at age 13, however, parents or guardians will be able to set up “mini-accounts” for minors linked to their own account. Access will concern social media platforms and video-sharing services deemed appropriate for the age group and will be accompanied by specific safeguards, including the restriction of social contacts and a maximum usage time of one hour per day. For minors between 3 and 13 years old, access to social media will not be permitted. However, video-sharing services designed specifically for this age group will be available through accounts managed by parents or guardians. The latter will also be able to restrict device use to authorized services only and to a maximum of one hour per day.

It is important to distinguish the threshold of 15 years set by the EU Kids Act for independently opening an account from the threshold relating to consent to the processing of personal data. Article 8 of the GDPR sets at 16 the minimum age for a minor to independently give consent to the processing of personal data in connection with the direct offer of information society services to minors. Member States may, however, lower this threshold to a minimum of 13 years. Italy has exercised this option through Article 2-quinquies of Legislative Decree 196/2003, setting the national threshold at 14 years. These are, however, two different disciplines with distinct purposes. Article 8 of the GDPR concerns the minor’s ability to independently give consent where this constitutes the legal basis for the processing of personal data, whereas the EU Kids Act governs the conditions under which minors may access certain categories of digital services. There is therefore not necessarily a contradiction in the fact that a fourteen-year-old may, under Italian law, independently consent to the processing of their own personal data while, at the same time, not yet being permitted to independently open an account on a service governed by the Kids Act^[3].

The Commission’s proposal is not limited to the question of the minimum age for access to social media but introduces a series of obligations applicable to all online services aimed at users under 18, including social media, video-sharing platforms, online video games, AI companions^[4], and chatbots. Among the proposal’s objectives is a ban on features designed to encourage compulsive use and on recommendation systems based on profiling that could direct minors toward harmful content. Features subject to the ban would include infinite scrolling of content without break points, certain reward mechanisms, push notifications during nighttime hours, and unsolicited contact from strangers. Particular attention is given to artificial intelligence systems. AI companions and chatbots must be disabled by default and may not simulate interpersonal relationships in a way that fosters emotional dependency. Minors’ profiles must also be set to private by default, while features such as geolocation, the camera, and the microphone must be disabled.

A further key element concerns age verification. Online services and app stores must use appropriate tools to verify users’ age. These include the European age verification application^[5], designed not to store identity documents or biometric data, with the aim of ensuring high standards of privacy protection.

Finally, the proposal addresses the liability of large digital service providers by introducing a particularly significant principle of reversal of the burden of proof: it will be for platforms to demonstrate that their services are safe for minors as early as the design phase. Providers will also be required to submit a specific “compliance plan” to the European Commission, built on the tools already provided for under the Digital Services Act (Regulation (EU) 2022/2065)^[6] and the AI Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689)^[7].

The period for submitting observations will close on November 26, 2026. The comments received will then be summarized by the Commission and forwarded to the European Parliament and the Council, with the aim of contributing to the subsequent legislative debate. Therefore, the European objective is not only to set a minimum age for users to gain access to social media, but also and above all, to design a digital ecosystem in which the safety of minors is considered an essential cross-cutting value.

Download the article.

[1] Eurobarometer shows strong EU concern over children’s online safety, https://cadeproject.org/updates/eurobarometer-shows-strong-eu-concern-over-childrens-online-safety/

[2] Children Online: The Commission Presents the EU Kids Act https://www.confindustriaradiotv.it/minori-online-la-commissione-presenta-leu-kids-act/

[3] EU Kids Act: nuove regole per social, verifica dell’età e tutela dei minori online, https://www.diritto.it/eu-kids-act-social-vietati-under-13-regole-fino-15/#block-a17c53eb-34e7-46ce-82d9-7c5630b5512b

[4] Bots designed to create a personal and emotional connection with the user. They are designed to come across as approachable, empathetic, and almost intimate. Users turn to them for advice, role-playing, or simply to experience simulated human interaction. https://www.qustodio.com/it/blog/compagni-ia-e-tuo-figlio/

[5] Ensuring Children’s Safety Online: A European Age Verification App https://commission.europa.eu/news-and-media/news/european-age-verification-app-keep-children-safe-online-2026-04-15_it

[6] The Digital Services Act is the European regulation on digital services: it establishes obligations proportionate to the size of the platform, and its main objective is to ensure the proper functioning of the EU’s digital market, protect consumers, and combat phenomena such as disinformation and the spread of illegal content https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/it/policies/digital-services-act

[7] The AI Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 establishing harmonized rules on artificial intelligence) is the world’s first comprehensive legal framework for AI. The goal of these rules is to promote trustworthy AI in Europe https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/it/policies/regulatory-framework-ai

The post EU KIDS ACT. PROTECTION OF CHILDREN ONLINE AND IN THE DIGITAL WORLD appeared first on Studio Legale De Berti Jacchia Franchini Forlani.

DE BERTI JACCHIA ADVISES CONTSHIP ON THE ACQUISITION OF THE TARROS GROUP

team valletta — Wed, 28 Oct 2026 11:39:33 +0000

Contship Italia (through its subsidiary Sogemar) has entered into a binding agreement for the acquisition of the Tarros Group, a leading player in maritime transport and integrated logistics in the Mediterranean. Completion of the transaction is subject to customary conditions precedent.

In addition to Tarros, the transaction perimeter includes Terminal del Golfo S.p.A., road transport and logistics operations and related companies (including CMS and Carbox), as well as international logistics operations (including Malta-based Med Logistics Malta).

The transaction is of significant strategic importance for the port system of La Spezia. Terminal del Golfo S.p.A., which holds a 40-year port concession, operates the second-largest container terminal in the port of La Spezia. Through this acquisition, Contship Italia – already a leading operator in the port of La Spezia as the manager of La Spezia Container Terminal (LSCT), the port’s largest container terminal – further strengthens its presence in the city, consolidating its position as a key player in one of Northern Italy’s main port gateways and a strategic hub for logistics corridors connecting Europe, the Mediterranean and North Africa.

De Berti Jacchia, with a team led by partner Tiziana Zona and comprising Alessandro Foti and Nicola Pizzuti, advised Contship Italia on the structuring of the transaction and the management of the related Italian tax aspects, also conducting the tax due diligence.

Read the news here.

The post DE BERTI JACCHIA ADVISES CONTSHIP ON THE ACQUISITION OF THE TARROS GROUP appeared first on Studio Legale De Berti Jacchia Franchini Forlani.

DE BERTI JACCHIA STRENGTHENS ITS ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT PRACTICE WITH THE ARRIVAL OF GUIDO GALEOTTI AND HIS TEAM

team valletta — Mon, 12 Oct 2026 13:08:12 +0000

De Berti Jacchia announces the arrival of Guido Galeotti as Partner, together with his team comprising Diletta Del Pizzo, Managing Associate, and Matteo Freschi, Associate. The three professionals join the firm’s Milan office, further strengthening its Energy and Environment practice and its expertise in Corporate and M&A.

The arrival of Guido Galeotti and his team comes at a time of significant growth for De Berti Jacchia, which has welcomed several new professionals in recent weeks, progressively expanding its expertise in strategic areas of practice.

The Energy and Environment practice thus further enhances its ability to advise Italian and international clients throughout the entire lifecycle of transactions involving corporate, energy and environmental matters: from acquisitions and corporate reorganisations in the energy, chemical and manufacturing sectors to energy transition and sustainability projects, as well as environmental compliance, remediation and due diligence matters relating to extraordinary transactions and investments.

Guido Galeotti has over 25 years of experience in Corporate M&A, including as a Partner at leading international law firms. With a strong transactional focus, he advises Italian and international clients on cross-border acquisitions, mergers, corporate reorganisations, investment agreements and shareholders’ agreements, with particular expertise in the chemical, manufacturing, energy and environmental sectors. He has also developed extensive expertise in environmental matters arising from extraordinary transactions, industrial site redevelopment projects, and environmental remediation and compliance procedures. He has been repeatedly recognised as a leading practitioner by major international legal directories.

Diletta Del Pizzo gained her professional experience at leading international law firms, advising Italian and foreign clients on extraordinary transactions. Her practice also focuses on environmental law, energy and sustainability, particularly regulatory compliance, environmental liability and related matters arising in the context of investments and corporate transactions.

Matteo Freschi has developed his expertise at Italian and international law firms, advising domestic and international clients on corporate and commercial law, contracts and extraordinary transactions. His practice also encompasses environmental law, with a particular focus on compliance, matters relating to contaminated site management and environmental due diligence.

“Guido brings over 25 years of experience in senior positions at international law firms, a track record recognised by leading legal directories and an outstanding ability to combine corporate law expertise with the environmental and energy matters that are increasingly central to our clients’ industrial strategies. His experience as Head of both the Corporate M&A and the Energy and Environmental departments at international law firms demonstrates a breadth of expertise which, combined with the skills of his team, significantly enhances our ability to advise Italian and international clients on transactions where industrial, environmental and energy considerations are becoming increasingly interconnected. The arrival of Guido and his team represents another strategic milestone in our firm’s growth,” comments Claudio Corba Colombo, Co-Managing Partner of De Berti Jacchia.

Download the press review.

The post DE BERTI JACCHIA STRENGTHENS ITS ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT PRACTICE WITH THE ARRIVAL OF GUIDO GALEOTTI AND HIS TEAM appeared first on Studio Legale De Berti Jacchia Franchini Forlani.

GREENWASHING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CLAIMS: LABELS AND DATA TO ENHANCE BRAND VALUE

team valletta — Thu, 08 Oct 2026 11:55:01 +0000

With the new anti-greenwashing rules coming into effect, companies are required to ensure that their environmental communications are increasingly transparent, accurate and verifiable, backing up their claims with concrete evidence.

ESG360 explored this topic in an article examining the new rules on environmental claims and their implications for businesses and consumers, also interviewing our Antonella Terranova.

As Antonella pointed out, the principle underlying the new legislation is clear: claiming to be sustainable is not enough; companies must be able to prove it.

Businesses must therefore pay particular attention to the environmental information they communicate, also in light of the new consumer protections and the penalties established for unfair commercial practices.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE IN ITALIAN

DOWNLOAD THE FULL ARTICLE

The post GREENWASHING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CLAIMS: LABELS AND DATA TO ENHANCE BRAND VALUE appeared first on Studio Legale De Berti Jacchia Franchini Forlani.

Online gaming: the Council of State draws the line between public health protection and freedom of enterprise

team valletta — Wed, 07 Oct 2026 15:09:52 +0000

Can the protection of public health justify restrictions on online gaming, and if so, to what extent can it limit freedom of enterprise?

With judgment No. 7220/2026, the Italian Council of State annulled the absolute ban imposed by the Italian Customs and Monopolies Agency (ADM) on making internet-connected devices available to customers to access online gaming at top-up points (P.V.R.s), finding the measure disproportionate to the objective of preventing gambling addiction.

The weekly €100 limit on cash top-ups or top-ups made using equivalent payment methods remains in place, as does the ban on withdrawing funds from gaming accounts at P.V.R.s.

The ruling highlights a key principle for the regulation of the sector: even measures aimed at protecting public health must be proportionate and must not unduly restrict freedom of enterprise through general and indiscriminate prohibitions.

In an article published on Norme & Tributi Plus by Il Sole 24 Ore, Antonella Terranova, Ilaria Sgrilli and Michele De Zio analyse the ruling and its implications for online gaming operators.

Read the full article in italian.

Download the full article.

The post Online gaming: the Council of State draws the line between public health protection and freedom of enterprise appeared first on Studio Legale De Berti Jacchia Franchini Forlani.

DE BERTI JACCHIA ADVISES CARL ZEISS S.P.A. ON THE MERGER BY INCORPORATION OF D.O.R.C. ITALY S.R.L.

team valletta — Fri, 02 Oct 2026 14:39:35 +0000

Carl Zeiss S.p.A. has completed the merger by incorporation of D.O.R.C. Italy S.r.l., as part of a transaction aimed at simplifying and streamlining the Group’s corporate structure in Italy.

De Berti Jacchia advised Carl Zeiss S.p.A. on the transaction, with Michelangelo Cicogna acting as client partner. The team included Antonella Terranova, who handled the regulatory aspects of the transaction; Giuseppina Zoccali, who advised on the corporate aspects and handled all corporate formalities relating to the merger; Matteo Bilei, who advised on matters relating to the post-merger integration of commercial relationships; and Tiziana Zona, who handled the tax aspects of the transaction.

Carl Zeiss S.p.A. was also advised by its in-house legal team, comprising Bruno Izzo, Head of Legal Affairs, and Camilla Garbarino, with the involvement of Giorgio Cristalli, CFO.

Download the press review.

The post DE BERTI JACCHIA ADVISES CARL ZEISS S.P.A. ON THE MERGER BY INCORPORATION OF D.O.R.C. ITALY S.R.L. appeared first on Studio Legale De Berti Jacchia Franchini Forlani.

DE BERTI JACCHIA STRENGTHENS ITS CAPITAL SOLUTIONS AND PRIVATE CAPITAL CAPABILITIES WITH THE ARRIVAL OF LUCA MAGRINI, ROCCO PUGLIESE, PASQUALE MOSELLA AND THEIR RESPECTIVE TEAMS

team valletta — Wed, 30 Sep 2026 13:55:02 +0000

De Berti Jacchia announces the arrival of Luca Magrini, Rocco Pugliese and Pasquale Mosella, who join the Firm as Partners, together with their respective teams, further expanding its expertise in private equity, finance, restructuring and M&A.

The arrival of the three professionals, whose complementary experience has been gained at leading firms, marks a significant step in the Firm’s growth strategy and supports the development of its new Capital Solutions practice, strengthening its position in the private capital market and its ability to advise private equity and private credit funds, asset managers, banks, financial institutions, sponsors, companies and Italian and international investors on complex and bespoke transactions.

The new Capital Solutions practice brings together complementary expertise in M&A, private equity, banking & finance, restructuring and special situations, enabling the Firm to support clients throughout the entire lifecycle of investments and equity and debt transactions, from acquisitions and disposals to financing and refinancing transactions, as well as restructuring, special situations and distressed investments.

Luca Magrini specialises in Private Equity, M&A and corporate law. He advises Italian and international private equity funds and corporate clients on domestic and cross-border transactions, with particular experience in the food & beverage, pharmaceutical and life sciences, industrial products and equipment, and services sectors. He has also developed extensive experience in restructuring and special situations, advising special opportunities funds, hedge funds and lenders on financial and corporate restructurings, distressed M&A and debt trading.

Rocco Pugliese specialises in complex financing transactions, with a particular focus on private capital and capital solutions. He advises private equity and private credit funds, banks, financial institutions, investors and Italian and international corporate groups on debt transactions, with particular experience in leveraged and acquisition finance, real assets finance, preferred equity and structured finance, as well as restructuring transactions.

Pasquale Mosella has extensive experience in Banking & Finance, with a particular focus on complex and innovative financing transactions requiring integrated expertise across lending, structured finance, NPLs/UTPs and restructuring. He advises Italian and international banks, investment funds, servicers and borrowers on real estate finance, leveraged finance, project finance and corporate lending transactions, as well as in turnaround and special situations contexts.

The three Partners will be joined at De Berti Jacchia by their respective teams, comprising Anna Ferrari, Managing Associate, Andrea Di Gregorio and Federica Di Ridolfi, Senior Associates, and Beatrice Carminati, Associate.

“The arrival of Luca, Rocco and Pasquale and their respective teams represents an important step in De Berti Jacchia’s growth and confirms our ability to attract professionals of the highest calibre. The strengthening of our Corporate/M&A and Banking & Finance practices, combined with the expertise that the new Partners bring in Private Equity, Restructuring and Special Situations, further enhances our ability to advise clients on the most complex transactions. This is a significant investment in the Firm’s development and in building an increasingly integrated organisation, combining complementary expertise with a strong international outlook,” comments Claudio Corba Colombo, Co-Managing Partner of De Berti Jacchia.

Download the press review.

The post DE BERTI JACCHIA STRENGTHENS ITS CAPITAL SOLUTIONS AND PRIVATE CAPITAL CAPABILITIES WITH THE ARRIVAL OF LUCA MAGRINI, ROCCO PUGLIESE, PASQUALE MOSELLA AND THEIR RESPECTIVE TEAMS appeared first on Studio Legale De Berti Jacchia Franchini Forlani.

GARAN GUARANTEE: NEW RULES FOR RETAILERS AND MANUFACTURERS FROM 27 SEPTEMBER 2026

team valletta — Fri, 25 Sep 2026 13:20:47 +0000

Starting from 27 September 2026, sellers of consumer goods will have to comply with a new information requirement introduced by EU legislation: the GARAN label, designed to inform consumers of the existence of a commercial guarantee of durability offered by the manufacturer.

The new requirement stems from Directive (EU) 2024/825, transposed into Italian law by Legislative Decree No. 30/2026, and is implemented by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1960, which established the format and content of the harmonised label applicable throughout the European Union.

The GARAN guarantee neither replaces nor modifies the legal guarantee of conformity provided for under the Italian Consumer Code.

Rather, it is a commercial guarantee of durability that manufacturers may voluntarily offer to consumers, undertaking to repair or replace the product if it fails to maintain its functionality or performance for the stated period.

A clear distinction must therefore be made between:

the legal guarantee of conformity, which is mandatory, is the seller’s responsibility and has a minimum duration of two years;
the commercial guarantee of durability (GARAN), which is voluntary and is the manufacturer’s responsibility;
any other conventional guarantees offered by manufacturers or retailers.

The key difference between these guarantees is that the legal guarantee always rests with the seller and has a minimum duration of two years, whereas the GARAN guarantee is a direct and exclusive commitment undertaken voluntarily by the manufacturer. It may have a longer duration and specifically concerns the durability of the product.

The seller’s obligation to display the GARAN label does not apply to all products and does not arise automatically.

The label must be displayed prominently, in accordance with the requirements and using the harmonised format laid down in Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1960, only where all four of the following conditions are met:

the manufacturer offers the guarantee at no additional cost to the consumer;
the guarantee covers the entire product rather than only specific components;
the guarantee lasts for more than two years;
the manufacturer has provided the seller with the necessary information.

If even one of these conditions is not met, the seller is not required to display the label.

Although the Italian Legislative Decree formally entered into force on 24 March 2026, the new provisions will apply only from 27 September 2026. From that date, both the harmonised notice concerning the legal guarantee and the GARAN label for products covered by a commercial guarantee of durability will become applicable.

The new Article 48 of the Italian Consumer Code requires traders, before the conclusion of the contract, to inform consumers about:

the existence of the legal guarantee of conformity;
the existence and duration of any commercial guarantee of durability offered by the manufacturer.

To comply with this requirement, the legislation provides for the use of standardised information tools that are uniform across the European market.

In physical retail stores, the label must be clearly visible; for online sales, it must be made available in accordance with the requirements laid down by EU legislation.

One particularly important point is that GARAN remains a guarantee provided by the manufacturer.

The seller does not automatically assume the obligations arising from the commercial guarantee of durability and must not present it as its own guarantee. For this reason, the harmonised label must identify the manufacturer providing the guarantee, rather than the retailer.

Failure to display the label where required may give rise to liability under the rules on unfair commercial practices, as consumers could be deprived of information relevant to their purchasing decisions. Similarly, ambiguous communications that could lead consumers to confuse the GARAN guarantee with the legal guarantee may be regarded as an unfair commercial practice.

Indeed, as stated in Recital 32 of Directive (EU) 2024/825, information concerning other commercial guarantees or services must not undermine the clarity of the information provided regarding the existence and duration of the commercial guarantee of durability offered by the manufacturer.

Ultimately, GARAN is a tool designed to encourage the purchase of more durable products and increase transparency for consumers. For sellers, however, it introduces a new information requirement which, from 27 September 2026, will require careful verification of the information received from manufacturers and of the way in which it is presented to consumers.

Antonella Terranova
Ilaria Sgrilli

The post GARAN GUARANTEE: NEW RULES FOR RETAILERS AND MANUFACTURERS FROM 27 SEPTEMBER 2026 appeared first on Studio Legale De Berti Jacchia Franchini Forlani.

LOTTOMATICA-CIRSA: A MERGER ACCELERATING THE CONSOLIDATION OF THE EUROPEAN GAMING MARKET

team valletta — Mon, 07 Sep 2026 09:20:57 +0000

The announced merger between Lottomatica and Cirsa could mark an important step in the consolidation of the European gaming market.

The transaction comes at a time when the market is becoming increasingly concentrated and international, with economies of scale, geographical diversification and technology investments playing an increasingly important role.

Alongside the industrial aspects, the competition and regulatory dimensions will also be key: from potential overlaps across different markets and business segments to compliance, consumer protection, anti-money laundering and data management issues.

In an article for Affaritaliani, Antonella Terranova analyses the Lottomatica-Cirsa transaction and its potential implications for the European gaming sector.

Read the full article in italian.

Download the full article.

The post LOTTOMATICA-CIRSA: A MERGER ACCELERATING THE CONSOLIDATION OF THE EUROPEAN GAMING MARKET appeared first on Studio Legale De Berti Jacchia Franchini Forlani.