Thanks to Arianna Daveri for collaborating on this article.
On 19 February 2026, the Italian Competition Authority (Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato, ‘AGCM’) announced the opening of two formal investigations and one moral suasion intervention (a procedure not entailing sanctions) against three Italian supermarket chains – Il Gigante, MD, and Famila – for allegedly conducting parasitic advertising campaigns in connection with the Milano Cortina 2026 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games, in possible violation of Article 10 of Decree Law No. 16 of 11 March 2020, as converted by Law No. 40 of 5 May 2020, forbidding ambush marketing (the ‘Decree’). The proceedings were initiated on the basis of reports received from and developed in collaboration with the Special Antitrust Unit of the Financial Police (Nucleo Speciale Antitrust della Guardia di Finanza) and follow the conclusion of a separate cautionary proceeding against Harmont & Blaine S.p.A.
The parties and the conduct under investigation
The first investigation targets Rialto S.p.A., operator of the Il Gigante supermarket chain, in connection with a promotional campaign titled “TecnOlimpiadi”, which ran from 15 to 28 January 2026. The campaign promoted a sale of household appliances and consumer electronics and, according to the AGCM, made use of the five Olympic rings and imagery associated with the Winter Games without authorization from the organizing bodies.
The second investigation concerns MD S.p.A., owner of the MD supermarket chain, for its campaign entitled “Inizio dei Giochi Olimpici MD Edition” (Beginning of the Olympic Games MD Edition), which featured, among other elements, the five Olympic rings and the Olympic flame.
In addition, the AGCM initiated a moral suasion intervention against SELEX Gruppo Commerciale S.p.A., which operates the Famila supermarket chain, after identifying references in one of its advertising campaigns that were considered evocative of Olympic symbols. Unlike the two formal investigations, the moral suasion does not carry sanctions but signals to the company that the AGCM expects it to modify its conduct voluntarily.
Ambush marketing: an overview
Ambush marketing occurs when a company associates its products or services with a major event, for instance a sporting event without acquiring the rights required to become an official sponsor. The strategy is designed to prevent an unauthorized company from benefiting from the awareness, attention, and goodwill generated by the event without compensating the organizing bodies or supporting the event’s participants. Where successful, the ambush marketer captures perceptual benefits such as increased brand awareness and positive brand image, that official sponsors secure in exchange for significant sums.
The applicable legal framework
The provision directly at issue in the present proceedings is Article 10 of the Decree, which prohibits “activities of parasitic, fraudulent, deceptive or misleading advertising and commercialization carried out in connection with the organization of sporting or trade fair events of national or international significance, not authorized by the organizing bodies and aimed at obtaining an economic or competitive advantage.” (unofficial translation)
The scope and practical application of the Decree were addressed by the Italian Council of State in a leading judgment of 11 April 2025 (No. 3118), which confirmed a fine imposed by the AGCM in connection with an ambush marketing campaign. Article 10 sets out four specific categories of prohibited conduct, including, most relevantly here, the creation of even an indirect link between a brand and the Games capable of misleading the public as to the identity of the official sponsors, and the sale or advertising of products bearing the event’s logo or signs capable of generating the erroneous perception of any connection with it. The prohibitions apply until the 180th day following the official end of the Games. Where a violation is established, Article 12 of the Decree empowers the AGCM to impose an administrative penalty of between €100,000 and €2.5 million. Interestingly, the upper threshold was increased during the Decree’s legislative process. Article 13 further preserves the right of injured parties to rely on other statutory provisions, such as trademark law under the Industrial Property Code, unfair competition under Article 2598 of the Civil Code, and unfair commercial practices under the Consumer Code.
