In the Italian digital landscape, a figure is emerging that is increasingly relevant yet still lacking a clear regulatory framework: the sports trader, an operator who applies financial trading logic and tools to sports betting markets.

On this topic, Antonella Terranova and Gaspare Roma provide an in-depth analysis published in ItaliaOggi, examining:

• the operational characteristics of sports trading and the role of betting exchange platforms
• the structural differences compared to financial trading, particularly from a regulatory standpoint
• the legal issues arising from the absence of a formal legal definition of this role
• the potential risks, including criminal liability, for those operating professionally on behalf of third parties

A contribution that highlights how technological evolution is outpacing the law, leaving grey areas that require targeted regulatory intervention.

Read the full article in italian.

Download the full article.

In the article by Gaspare Roma, Antonella Terranova, and Adriano Garofalo, published on NT+ Diritto of Il Sole 24 Ore, a recent decision by the Italian Data Protection Authority (no. 113/2026) is analyzed. The case concerns a Foundation, a public-law entity, and a manager dismissed for just cause.

The case revolves around the publication, in the “Transparent Administration” section, of a resolution regarding the dismissal of the manager, including his personal data and freely accessible online.

Following the employee’s complaint, the Authority recognized the precedence of the right to privacy over administrative transparency, contrary to the Foundation’s position. The latter had justified the publication by invoking transparency obligations, the strategic role of the manager, and the fact that the news had already been disclosed, also noting that the data had later been redacted.

The case brings back to the forefront a crucial question: where does the obligation of transparency end, and where does the protection of privacy begin?

But what did the Data Protection Authority actually establish in this case?

 

 

Read the full article in italian.

Download the full article.

De Berti Jacchia has advised Olyos Group, an international player and a leading company in the natural health sector, as well as the fifth-largest operator in the French market for food supplements distributed in pharmacies and para-pharmacies, on the acquisition of Somatoline, a historic dermocosmetics brand in Italy, previously owned by Manetti & Roberts, a company controlled by the Bolton Group.

Through this transaction, Olyos strengthens its presence in the dermocosmetics sector and, leveraging strategic commercial and operational synergies, aims to accelerate its expansion in the Italian and European markets.

De Berti Jacchia assisted Olyos Group on all legal and tax aspects of the transaction with a multidisciplinary team led by partner Claudio Corba Colombo, supported by senior associate Benedetta Mazzotti for corporate M&A matters. Partners Antonella Terranova and Pietro Meda handled administrative law and pharmaceutical regulatory aspects, respectively.

Partner Andrea Terragni advised on intellectual property matters, while tax and employment aspects were handled by partners Tiziana Zona and Gaspare Roma, respectively.

De Berti Jacchia advised Trench Group, an international group active in the development of components and technologies for high-voltage power transmission infrastructure, in the acquisition of 100% of the share capital of Enerlux Power S.r.l., an Italian company specialized in the production of power capacitors and power factor correction systems for medium- and high-voltage applications.

The transaction represents a further step in Trench Group’s growth strategy. The group currently employs more than 2,900 people and operates 10 production plants and 4 regional hubs, thereby strengthening its portfolio of technologies dedicated to the reliability and quality of power grids.

The De Berti Jacchia team, which assisted Trench Group on all legal aspects of the transaction, was led by partners Chiara Caliandro and Claudio Corba Colombo, supported by senior associate Benedetta Mazzotti. Partners Antonella Terranova and Gaspare Roma advised respectively on administrative law and employment law matters.

In an article published in QuotidianoPiù by Giuffrè Francis Lefebvre, Gaspare Roma and Ilaria Uletto analyze Order No. 3261 of February 13, 2026, in which the Court of Cassation rules on the proportionality of disciplinary sanctions in cases involving violent conduct toward a disabled patient.

The Court states that, in services aimed at vulnerable individuals, the sensitive nature of the working environment does not mitigate responsibility; on the contrary, it requires an even higher level of professionalism and self-control. Stress cannot justify conduct that harms the integrity of the person receiving care.

Can a particularly stressful work environment reduce the disciplinary severity of violent conduct?
The Court of Cassation answers no: the very vulnerability of the individuals being assisted strengthens the bond of trust and may justify dismissal for just cause.

To learn more, an article by Gaspare Roma and Ilaria Uletto is available on QuotidianoPiù by Giuffrè Francis Lefebvre, providing an in-depth analysis of the order.

 

Read the full article in italian.

Download the full article.

With Order No. 1235 of January 20, 2026, the Italian Court of Cassation addressed the issue of compensation for loss of chance in relation to the failure to grant annual bonuses to employees.

The ruling clarifies a fundamental principle: there is no automatic link between the failure to assign targets or the non-recognition of a bonus and the right to compensation.

An employee who brings legal action to obtain compensation for loss of chance must concretely and rigorously prove the existence of the conditions from which the loss of an actual financial advantage derives. It is not sufficient to merely claim the expectation of receiving the bonus; rather, it is necessary to demonstrate that there was a real and serious probability of obtaining it and that such opportunity has been compromised.

To learn more, an article by Gaspare Roma and Laura Mucciarelli is available on NT+ Diritto of Il Sole 24 Ore, providing an in-depth analysis of the order.

 

Read the full article in italian.

Download the full article.

The Italian Supreme Court (Corte di Cassazione), with Order No. 436 of January 8, 2026, confirmed that a non-compete agreement is valid even when the compensation is linked to the duration of the employment relationship, provided that it is determinable and adequate to compensate for the restriction of professional freedom.

The ruling stems from a dispute in which a company sought payment of a penalty from a former employee for an alleged breach of the agreement. It reiterates the importance of defining compensation that is proportionate and transparent, ensuring a balance between the employer’s interests and the protection of the employee.

The order, analyzed by Gaspare Roma, Ilaria Uletto, and Veronica Maria Sole Franco in an article published in QuotidianoPiù by Giuffrè Francis Lefebvre, clarifies that the validity of a non-compete agreement does not depend solely on the presence of fixed compensation. It may also be valid where the compensation is determinable, as long as it is adequate. It is essential, in fact, to guarantee the employee compensation that is proportionate to the limitation imposed on their professional freedom for the entire duration of the restriction.

 

Read the full article in italian.

Download the full article.

The Court of Rome, with judgment no. 9135 of 19 November 2025, addresses one of the most debated issues of our time: the impact of artificial intelligence on employment.

According to the judges, replacing an employee with an AI system may justify a dismissal for justified objective reason, provided that the traditional principles of labour law are respected: an economic and financial crisis, a causal link between the reorganization and the dismissal, and the impossibility of redeployment (repêchage).

The decision clarifies that the adoption of algorithmic technologies does not introduce a special legal regime, but rather falls within the existing regulatory framework, which continues to serve as the benchmark for assessing the lawfulness of employers’ decisions.

This represents a first significant judicial precedent, opening the door to new reflections on the balance between technological innovation and employment protection.

To learn more, an in-depth article by Gaspare Roma and Ilaria Uletto is available on NT+ Diritto by Il Sole 24 Ore.

 

Read the full article in italian.

Download the full article.