AGCOM and Media Trials: Reconstituting the Committee for TV and Social Media

1. The Fact

   According to reports by Prima Comunicazione and Articolo21, the AGCOM Council has approved the reconstitution of the Committee tasked with monitoring compliance with the Self-Regulation Code on media and judicial proceedings, originally signed in 2009.

   This initiative does not stem from a single criminal trial, but forms part of an administrative regulatory and oversight procedure aimed at updating protections for suspects and defendants. The main innovation lies in extending this monitoring beyond traditional TV broadcasters to digital professionals such as vloggers and podcasters, provided their activity has a significant impact on public opinion.

   The goal is to prevent premature reputational and punitive outcomes prior to the conclusion of court proceedings.

2. The Rules in Play

   The legal framework is rooted in the Italian Constitution, specifically Article 21 on freedom of the press and Article 27, paragraph 2, on the presumption of innocence. At the supranational level, Directive (EU) 2016/343 requires Member States to ensure that public authorities do not refer to a suspect as guilty prior to final conviction.

   This principle was transposed into Italian law by Legislative Decree 188/2021, which limits the dissemination of non-essential procedural details. Finally, the Consolidated Law on Audiovisual Media Services (TUSMA) empowers AGCOM to sanction media providers that violate the duty of objectivity and respect for human dignity.

3. What Jurisprudence Says

   Settled case law from the Supreme Court has established the so-called Journalist's Decalogue, affirming that the exercise of the right to report is lawful only if three cumulative requirements are met: objective truth (or diligent verification of the facts), relevance or pertinence (social utility of the information), and restraint or continence (a civil, non-excessive form of presentation).

   The Supreme Court has clarified that the presumption of innocence does not prevent reporting on investigative developments, but prohibits presenting them in a suggestive or accusatory manner. Similarly, European courts have reiterated that public authorities must not fuel public prejudice through premature statements to the media.

5. Analysis drafted and verified with edit.legal

   To verify the provisions cited in this article, we used edit.legal. Test our legal AI on official sources and apply it to your own matters.

   Try edit.legal AI

8. What it Teaches Professionals

   1. Digital Monitoring: Lawyers must monitor not only traditional newspapers but also social media platforms to detect violations of the presumption of innocence.

   2. Qualification of Media Activity: It is essential to analyze whether the content creator acts with editorial purposes to invoke TUSMA protections.

   3. Prompt Rectification: Requesting an immediate correction is often more effective in mitigating reputational damage than seeking belated administrative sanctions.

   4. Prudent Language: Communication professionals should be advised to consistently use the conditional mood and refer accurately to the ongoing procedural stage.

References: Articolo 21 Costituzione ItalianaArticolo 27 Costituzione ItalianaDirettiva (UE) 2016/343D.Lgs. 188/2021D.Lgs. 208/2021 (TUSMA)Codice di autoregolamentazione media e procedimenti giudiziari 2009

Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa·ICAMUpdated 11 June 2026