The ‘Me contro Te’ case and the Competition Authority’s complaint: ‘Children are not a commercial target’

In addition to the alleged breaches of the Consumer Code, the dossier filed – which has also been served on the Public Prosecutor’s Office in Trapani – alleges serious breaches of privacy: ranging from the collection of data and gaming behaviour relating to minors without age verification or parental consent, to a privacy notice deemed outdated and contradictory.

The issues with the business model had already been reported by Consumerismo on 9 June to the Italian Competition and Market Authority (Antitrust) and the Data Protection Authority. Over the past two years, the Italian influencer marketing market has been undergoing a transition: from a state of complete deregulation to a sector subject to increasing scrutiny by the authorities. This regulatory parallel quickly brings us to 2023, when the same Authority imposed heavy sanctions in the Balocco-Ferragni case.

Although the cases are fundamentally different (in that instance, the issue was the misleading nature of fake charity campaigns; in this one, the issue is the direct encouragement of purchases aimed at minors and the lack of transparency regarding commercial links), the common thread remains the need to enforce transparency and corporate accountability on those who move millions whilst exploiting their digital influence. The couple’s company, moreover, boasts figures on a par with those of a major enterprise: €29 million in assets, €4 million in revenue and projected profits of €1.7 million for 2025.

Adding to the complications surrounding Me contro Te’s reputation is the recent controversy surrounding their wedding event, held on 5 September at the Unipol Dome in Milan in front of around 6,000 paying guests (with tickets costing between 48 and 110 euros). Faced with numerous critical analyses circulating online – including one by the content creator “Sbortus” – the couple’s legal team responded by issuing copyright strikes (reports of copyright infringement) to have the videos removed from YouTube. As also highlighted by legal experts and specialists in new technology law such as Guido Scorza,

The use of copyright as a tool of censorship is a dangerous overreach. Article 70 of the Copyright Act (Law 633/1941) explicitly protects the free reproduction of short extracts from a work when this is done for the purposes of criticism or discussion. Turning a wedding into a public, profit-making commercial event inevitably exposes it to public scrutiny. Sending automated notifications to platforms to silence those exercising a legitimate right to criticise highlights a disproportionate balance of power to the detriment of smaller creators, and highlights the urgent need to review the moderation mechanisms of Big Tech, which are all too inclined to comply with takedown requests in order to avoid joint liability.