What is the Italian AGCom Influencer Code and what changed in the May 2026 enforcement phase?

The Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni — AGCom for short — published the Italian Influencer Code through Resolution 7/24/CONS in early 2024 and has since iterated the code through several enforcement phases. The code applies the audiovisual media services framework to creators who meet defined thresholds and produces obligations on registration, disclosure, content classification, and brand-creator joint responsibility for non-compliant communications. The code's legal anchor is the Italian Audiovisual Media Services Code as amended by Legislative Decree 208/2021, which transposed the EU Audiovisual Media Services Directive. The May 2026 enforcement phase is the second wave of enforcement under the code and tightens several provisions that the first wave left ambiguous. The phase introduces mandatory registration in the AGCom Registry of Communications Operators for creators meeting the audience thresholds, formalises the TC ESI structured disclosure label system, expands the cross-border application to creators based outside Italy who target Italian audiences, and clarifies brand co-liability for non-compliant communications produced by creators in commercial partnerships. The May 2026 phase also introduces an audit programme that AGCom is operating in coordination with civil society monitors and platform-side DSA reporting. The audit programme produces a periodic published report identifying non-compliant patterns and naming creators and brands implicated in the patterns. The naming convention is a material reputation risk that AGCom has explicitly identified as part of the enforcement strategy. From the brand perspective the May 2026 phase is operationally significant because brands are now joint targets of enforcement actions where the underlying communication is non-compliant. The earlier phases of the code held creators primarily responsible with brand exposure limited to clear cases of brand direction. The May 2026 phase reverses the presumption — brands are presumed responsible for communications produced under their commercial partnerships unless the brand can document a reasonable due-diligence process and creator-side undertaking to comply with the code. The combined effect is that brands running influencer campaigns targeting Italian audiences must implement creator-vetting workflow, contractual provisions aligned with the code, ongoing compliance monitoring, and documentation that supports response to AGCom inquiries. For the broader influencer compliance frame, see Influencer Compliance Guide and run Disclosure Checker for content audit.

What are the mandatory registration thresholds and the AGCom Registry process for influencers in Italy?

The Italian AGCom Influencer Code defines a tiered threshold structure that determines which creators must register in the AGCom Registry of Communications Operators and which obligations apply at each tier. The threshold structure recognises that small creators producing occasional content should not face the same regulatory burden as professional creators with substantial commercial activity, and the tiering is calibrated to focus enforcement resources on creators with material market presence. The first tier is the registration threshold. Creators must register in the AGCom Registry when they reach one million followers across the major Italian-relevant platforms — Meta surfaces including Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, X, and Twitch — or when they produce a documented annual income from creator activity above twenty-four thousand euros. The threshold is reached when the creator meets either condition, and the threshold applies regardless of the creator's nationality or country of residence as long as the creator's content reaches Italian audiences in a structured way. The second tier is the active engagement threshold. Creators with five hundred thousand or more followers face a subset of the obligations under the code without full registration, including the disclosure requirement, the content classification taxonomy, and the brand co-liability provisions. The active engagement tier captures creators who have material commercial activity but who have not yet reached the registration threshold, and the tier supports the code's policy goal of normalising compliance across the creator economy rather than focusing only on the largest creators. The registration process operates through an online portal that AGCom launched in revised form in March 2026 ahead of the May 2026 enforcement phase. The process requires creators to submit identity verification, evidence of follower counts across platforms, declaration of primary platforms and content categories, declaration of commercial partnerships and revenue sources, and acceptance of the code's disclosure and content classification obligations. The verification typically takes between two and six weeks depending on documentation completeness. Registered creators receive a unique identifier that must appear in the metadata of sponsored content where the platform supports metadata fields, and the identifier supports AGCom's audit programme by providing a stable link between content and registration record. Failure to register when required produces administrative sanctions that the code defines on a graduated scale. First-instance non-compliance produces a warning with a remediation timeline, second-instance non-compliance produces fines up to two hundred fifty thousand euros, and persistent non-compliance can produce content removal orders directed at platforms under the DSA cooperation framework. For automated review of creator content against AGCom disclosure standards, route through Disclosure Checker and reference EU DSA Compliance .

What is the TC ESI structured disclosure label system and how should brands implement it in 2026?

The TC ESI label system is the AGCom Influencer Code's structured disclosure mechanism that replaces the unstructured hashtag disclosures that dominated Italian influencer practice through 2024. TC stands for Trasparenza Commerciale — commercial transparency — and ESI stands for Esposizione Sostenuta da Imprese — exposure supported by enterprises. The combined label format produces a standardised disclosure that consumers can recognise across creators and platforms, and the standardisation supports AGCom's audit programme by enabling automated detection of disclosure patterns. The label format requires creators to include the TC and ESI tokens in the content alongside identification of the brand or commercial partner. The default placement is in the first line of the caption on Instagram and similar platforms, in the spoken or on-screen text within the first three seconds of video content, and in the description field on long-form video platforms. The placement requirements ensure that the disclosure is conspicuous before the consumer engages with the content, and the prominence requirement is enforced through AGCom's audit programme. The label system distinguishes between several commercial relationship types. The TC ESI base label applies to standard sponsored content where the brand pays the creator for content production. The TC ESI/AF label applies to affiliate relationships where the creator earns compensation tied to consumer purchases. The TC ESI/PR label applies to product gifting where the creator received goods of material value without explicit content production payment. The TC ESI/IT label applies to in-house creator relationships where the creator is contractually integrated with the brand's marketing function. Each label variant has specific disclosure copy requirements that the code prescribes in detail. From the brand perspective the TC ESI label system requires several operational changes. Brand-creator contracts should specify the appropriate label variant for the relationship type, should require the creator to apply the label in the prescribed format, and should include audit rights that allow the brand to verify compliance. The brand should provide template label copy to the creator that aligns with the code's prescribed format, should review delivered content for label compliance before authorising publication, and should retain documentation of the review process for response to AGCom inquiries. Cross-platform implementation produces operational complexity because each platform has different label support. Instagram supports the Paid Partnership tag which is technically distinct from the TC ESI label, and AGCom has indicated that Paid Partnership alone is insufficient to satisfy the code. TikTok supports a similar Branded Content disclosure that is also insufficient without the TC ESI text. YouTube supports a Paid Promotion checkbox that is also insufficient. The recommended pattern is to apply the platform-native disclosure feature in addition to the explicit TC ESI text in caption or video. For automated audit of disclosure compliance across creator content, route through Disclosure Checker .

How does brand co-liability work under the May 2026 enforcement phase of the AGCom code?

Brand co-liability under the May 2026 enforcement phase of the AGCom Influencer Code reverses the earlier presumption that creators bear primary responsibility for communications they produce. The reversed presumption holds brands responsible for communications produced under commercial partnerships unless the brand can document a reasonable due-diligence process and a creator-side undertaking to comply with the code. The standard is operational rather than contractual — the brand cannot satisfy the standard merely by including compliance language in the contract; the brand must demonstrate that it actively monitored the creator's compliance during and after content production. The due-diligence standard requires brands to implement several specific practices. The brand must vet the creator's compliance history before entering the partnership including review of past content for disclosure compliance, review of past AGCom enforcement records, and verification that the creator is registered or in process of registering where the threshold applies. The brand must include contractual provisions aligned with the code including TC ESI label requirements, content classification taxonomy obligations, audit rights, breach remedies, and indemnification scoped to creator-side non-compliance. The brand must implement ongoing monitoring during the campaign including review of delivered content before publication, post-publication review for label compliance, and consumer-complaint monitoring. The brand must retain documentation of the due-diligence process for at least the prescribed retention period — three years under the current code provisions. Failure to satisfy the due-diligence standard produces brand exposure to the same sanctions that apply to creators including warnings, fines up to two hundred fifty thousand euros per non-compliant communication, and content removal orders directed at platforms. The brand sanctions can stack with creator sanctions where both parties are non-compliant, and AGCom has indicated that joint sanctions will be the default approach in cases where the code's reasonable due-diligence standard is not satisfied. The brand co-liability extends beyond the immediate sanction. AGCom's audit programme publishes periodic reports that name creators and brands implicated in non-compliant patterns, and the naming convention produces reputation exposure that operates independently of the formal sanction. Brands running influencer campaigns at scale should treat the audit programme as a continuous compliance signal rather than a one-time check. The reasonable due-diligence standard interacts with broader EU regulatory frameworks. The DSA imposes due-diligence obligations on platforms for advertising and creator-driven content, and the brand-creator-platform triangle produces overlapping due-diligence obligations that AGCom has been coordinating with the European Commission and with national DSA digital services coordinators. Brands running cross-border influencer campaigns should expect coordinated enforcement actions across regulatory frameworks. For automated audit of brand-creator content compliance, run Disclosure Checker and reference EU DSA Compliance .

Does the AGCom Influencer Code apply to creators based outside Italy who target Italian audiences?

The AGCom Influencer Code applies to creators based outside Italy when those creators target Italian audiences in a structured way, and the cross-border application is one of the most significant features of the May 2026 enforcement phase. The cross-border application is grounded in the country-of-destination principle that the EU Audiovisual Media Services Directive establishes as a principle for content regulation, and AGCom has applied the principle to the influencer code in line with the broader EU regulatory direction. The targeting test that AGCom applies includes several factors. The creator's content language is a primary factor — content produced in Italian is presumed to target Italian audiences. Content produced in English with substantial Italian audience reach is also captured, and the threshold for substantial reach is calibrated to the creator's overall audience composition rather than to absolute numbers. The creator's commercial relationships are also relevant — partnerships with brands that have material commercial presence in Italy strengthen the targeting presumption. The creator's content topics are relevant where topics are specifically Italian — fashion brands with Italian heritage, Italian travel destinations, Italian food culture, and similar topics produce a stronger targeting presumption. The cross-border application means that creators based in the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and other countries face AGCom obligations when their content reaches Italian audiences in line with the targeting test. The obligations include registration in the AGCom Registry where the relevant thresholds apply, application of the TC ESI label in Italian-language content directed at Italian audiences, content classification taxonomy compliance, and acceptance of brand co-liability for partnership content. The cross-border enforcement mechanic operates through several channels. AGCom can issue administrative sanctions directly against the creator including fines and content removal orders, and the orders are enforceable through DSA cooperation against the platforms that host the content. AGCom can coordinate with the creator's home regulatory authority where one exists for influencer regulation. AGCom can refer the matter to consumer protection authorities and to data protection authorities where the underlying conduct triggers parallel jurisdiction. Cross-border brands targeting Italian audiences must include the cross-border creator scope in their compliance posture. Brand-creator contracts with creators based outside Italy should include the same TC ESI label requirements, content classification taxonomy obligations, and audit rights that apply to Italy-based creators when the campaign targets Italian audiences. The brand should not assume that geographic distance reduces exposure — AGCom has indicated that cross-border enforcement is a priority for the May 2026 phase, and the agency has identified named creators based outside Italy in the audit programme. For audit of cross-border creator-brand content alignment, run Disclosure Checker and reference the broader EU regulatory frame through EU DSA Compliance .

What practical workflow should advertisers running Italian influencer campaigns implement before the May 2026 enforcement phase intensifies?

The practical workflow for advertisers running Italian influencer campaigns before the May 2026 enforcement phase intensifies involves five workstreams that should run in parallel during the second quarter of 2026. Advertisers operating campaigns at scale should treat the May 2026 phase as a forced compliance reset rather than an incremental tightening, and resourcing should reflect the operational burden. The first workstream is creator portfolio audit. Every active creator partnership should be reviewed against the code's threshold structure to determine which obligations apply, against the registration status to confirm that creators meeting the registration threshold are registered or in process, against the content history for past disclosure compliance, and against the audit programme records to identify creators with prior non-compliant patterns. The audit produces a list of partnerships that need contractual update, a list of creators that need onboarding to the TC ESI label format, and a list of partnerships that should be terminated or restructured because of compliance risk. The second workstream is contract update. Brand-creator contracts should be updated to include explicit TC ESI label requirements with prescribed copy, content classification taxonomy obligations, audit rights for the brand to review content before and after publication, indemnification scoped to creator-side non-compliance, breach remedies aligned with the code's sanction structure, and retention obligations for compliance documentation. The contract update process typically takes four to eight weeks for a multi-creator brand and may require legal review per creator. The third workstream is content review process. The brand should implement a pre-publication review process that verifies TC ESI label format, content classification taxonomy alignment, and product claim accuracy. The pre-publication review should be documented and the documentation should support response to AGCom inquiries. The brand should also implement a post-publication monitoring process that captures live content for periodic audit. The fourth workstream is consumer complaint and AGCom inquiry response. The brand should designate a point of contact for AGCom inquiries, should establish a response template that captures the required information without prejudicing the brand's compliance posture, and should integrate the response process with broader regulatory inquiry handling. The fifth workstream is documentation and accountability. The brand should retain documentation of the due-diligence process for the prescribed retention period — three years under the current code provisions. The documentation should include creator vetting records, contract execution evidence, content review records, monitoring logs, and AGCom inquiry response records. Advertisers running cross-border campaigns should extend the workflow to include creators based outside Italy who target Italian audiences. The cross-border extension typically adds twenty to thirty percent to the operational burden depending on the creator portfolio composition. For end-to-end audit of brand-creator content compliance, run Disclosure Checker and reference the cross-platform regulatory frame through Influencer Compliance Guide .

AGCom Italy Influencer Code 2026: Registration & Brand Liability

AGCom Influencer Code & May 2026 Phase

The Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni — AGCom — published the Italian Influencer Code through Resolution 7/24/CONS in early 2024 and has since iterated the code through several enforcement phases. The code applies the audiovisual media services framework to creators who meet defined thresholds and produces obligations on registration, disclosure, content classification, and brand-creator joint responsibility for non-compliant communications. The legal anchor is the Italian Audiovisual Media Services Code as amended by Legislative Decree 208/2021, which transposed the EU Audiovisual Media Services Directive.

The May 2026 enforcement phase is the second wave under the code and tightens several provisions that the first wave left ambiguous. The phase introduces mandatory registration in the AGCom Registry of Communications Operators for creators meeting audience thresholds, formalises the TC ESI structured disclosure label system, expands cross-border application to creators based outside Italy who target Italian audiences, and clarifies brand co-liability for non-compliant communications produced by creators in commercial partnerships.

From the brand perspective the May 2026 phase is operationally significant because brands are now joint targets of enforcement actions where the underlying communication is non-compliant. The earlier phases of the code held creators primarily responsible with brand exposure limited to clear cases of brand direction. The May 2026 phase reverses the presumption — brands are presumed responsible for communications produced under their commercial partnerships unless the brand can document a reasonable due-diligence process and a creator-side undertaking to comply with the code.

"The May 2026 phase makes the brand a co-respondent rather than a remote sponsor. Reasonable due diligence is the operational standard, and the documentation discipline is the practical defence."
— AuditSocials Italian influencer brief, May 2026

For the broader influencer compliance frame, see the Influencer Compliance Guide and run Disclosure Checker for content audit.

Mandatory Registration Thresholds

The AGCom Influencer Code defines a tiered threshold structure that determines which creators must register in the AGCom Registry of Communications Operators and which obligations apply at each tier. The threshold structure recognises that small creators producing occasional content should not face the same regulatory burden as professional creators with substantial commercial activity.

Tier Structure Under the Code

Tier	Threshold	Obligations
Registration tier	1M followers across major platforms OR €24K+ annual creator income	Full registration, TC ESI labels, content classification, audit cooperation
Active engagement tier	500K-1M followers	TC ESI labels, content classification, brand co-liability provisions
Below active tier	<500K followers	General consumer protection law; no code-specific obligations

Registration Process

Identity verification: Government-issued identifier, residence confirmation
Audience evidence: Cross-platform follower counts with platform verification
Commercial declaration: Primary platforms, content categories, partnership types
Code acceptance: TC ESI label and content classification commitment
Unique identifier: Issued on registration completion; required in sponsored content metadata

Registration timeline is typically two to six weeks. Failure to register when required produces graduated administrative sanctions up to €250,000 per persistent violation. For automated review of creator content against AGCom standards, route through Disclosure Checker.

TC ESI Structured Disclosure Labels

The TC ESI label system is the AGCom Influencer Code's structured disclosure mechanism that replaces unstructured hashtag disclosures. TC stands for Trasparenza Commerciale — commercial transparency — and ESI for Esposizione Sostenuta da Imprese — exposure supported by enterprises. The standardised format supports AGCom's audit programme by enabling automated detection of disclosure patterns.

Label Variants by Commercial Relationship

Variant	Applies To	Required Format Element
TC ESI	Standard paid sponsorship	Brand identification + first-line caption placement
TC ESI/AF	Affiliate relationship	Affiliate disclosure + commission acknowledgement
TC ESI/PR	Product gifting of material value	Gifting disclosure + product source identification
TC ESI/IT	In-house creator integration	Employment relationship disclosure

Cross-Platform Implementation

Instagram: Paid Partnership tag PLUS TC ESI text in first-line caption
TikTok: Branded Content disclosure PLUS TC ESI text in caption
YouTube: Paid Promotion checkbox PLUS TC ESI text in description and first-three-second on-screen
X: TC ESI text at start of post; thread anchor on multi-post campaigns

Platform-native disclosure features alone are insufficient — AGCom has explicitly stated that Paid Partnership tag, Branded Content disclosure, and Paid Promotion checkbox do not satisfy the TC ESI requirement without the explicit text. For automated audit of disclosure compliance, route through Disclosure Checker.

Brand Co-Liability Standard

Brand co-liability under the May 2026 enforcement phase reverses the earlier presumption that creators bear primary responsibility. The reversed presumption holds brands responsible for communications produced under commercial partnerships unless the brand can document a reasonable due-diligence process and a creator-side undertaking to comply with the code. The standard is operational rather than contractual — compliance language alone is insufficient.

Reasonable Due-Diligence Components

Pre-partnership creator vetting: Past content review, AGCom enforcement record check, registration status verification
Contractual provisions: TC ESI requirements, content taxonomy obligations, audit rights, breach remedies, indemnification
Pre-publication content review: Documented review of delivered content for compliance before authorisation
Post-publication monitoring: Live content audit, consumer complaint tracking
Documentation retention: Three-year retention of all due-diligence evidence

Sanction Stack

First-instance non-compliance: Warning + remediation timeline
Second-instance non-compliance: Fines up to €250,000 per non-compliant communication
Persistent non-compliance: Content removal orders directed at platforms under DSA cooperation
Audit programme naming: Public identification in periodic AGCom reports

For consolidated EU regulatory framework, see EU DSA Compliance.

Cross-Border Application

The AGCom Influencer Code applies to creators based outside Italy when those creators target Italian audiences in a structured way. The cross-border application is grounded in the country-of-destination principle that the EU Audiovisual Media Services Directive establishes for content regulation.

Targeting Test Factors

Content language: Italian-language content presumed to target Italian audiences
Audience composition: Substantial Italian audience reach in non-Italian content captured
Commercial relationships: Partnerships with brands of material Italian commercial presence
Content topics: Italian-specific topics — fashion heritage, travel destinations, food culture

Enforcement Mechanics for Cross-Border Cases

Mechanic	Applicability
Direct administrative sanction	All creators regardless of residence when targeting test met
DSA platform cooperation	Content removal orders enforceable through hosting platforms
Cross-regulator coordination	Referral to creator's home regulator where one exists
Parallel referrals	Consumer protection and data protection authorities

Cross-border brands targeting Italian audiences must include creators based outside Italy in their compliance posture. For audit of cross-border creator-brand content alignment, run Disclosure Checker.

Italian Campaign Compliance Checklist

[ ] Audit every active creator partnership against AGCom threshold structure
[ ] Verify creators meeting the registration threshold are registered or in process
[ ] Update brand-creator contracts with explicit TC ESI label requirements
[ ] Include audit rights, indemnification, and breach remedies aligned with the code
[ ] Implement pre-publication content review with documented sign-off
[ ] Apply platform-native disclosure feature PLUS explicit TC ESI text on every sponsored post
[ ] Implement post-publication monitoring with consumer complaint tracking
[ ] Designate AGCom inquiry response point of contact
[ ] Retain due-diligence documentation for three years
[ ] Extend workflow to non-Italy-based creators targeting Italian audiences
[ ] Pre-clear regulated-industry creator content through legal review
[ ] Track in-flight AGCom guidance through the Policy Tracker

Don't miss the next policy change.

Subscribe to the Policy Tracker — get weekly digests or instant Pro alerts across all 8 platforms. Or try our free Keyword Risk Checker first.

Subscribe Free

Report Keywords — Run AI Compliance Audit

#AGCom#Italy#Influencer Compliance#TC ESI#Disclosure Rules#Brand Safety#DSA#Cross-Border#2026 Policy#Creators#Advertisers#Compliance Guide 2026

Share This Report

Tweet Share

Negative Influencing & FTC Deinfluencing Enforcement Rules 2026 — When "Don't Buy This" Still Needs Disclosure

Deinfluencing content — where creators tell audiences NOT to buy — still requires FTC disclosure when there's a material connection. With penalties hitting $53,088 per post and consumers now filing direct lawsuits, brands face shared liability across an expanded enforcement landscape.

EU DSA Second-Wave VLOP Designations April 2026 — 12+ New Platforms Under Article 33, Cross-Product User Counts & 2027 Audit Timeline

The European Commission's second-wave DSA designations effective April 2026 add 12+ platforms to the Very Large Online Platform list under tighter user-count methodology. The January 2027 compliance review will be the first formal audit of the second-wave cohort with fines up to 6% of global revenue.

Social Media Accessibility Compliance for Advertisers 2026 — ADA, EAA, Alt Text, Captions & Inclusive Ad Standards

The European Accessibility Act takes effect June 2025 and enforcement ramps in 2026 alongside evolving ADA digital requirements. Here's how advertisers must adapt ad creative, landing pages, and campaigns.

Italian AGCom Influencer Code May 2026 Enforcement: Mandatory Registration, Disclosure Codes & Cross-Border Brand Liability