Italy revises protocol tests for gambling concessionaires

Italian gambling concessionaires need to identify whether their protocol test scripts and message handling reflect the revised fields, formats and return codes in version 1.2.1. Italy's Customs and Monopolies Agency (ADM) published the updated procedures on 23 September 2026. The 145-page document is dated 21 September and sets out how verification bodies check communications between concessionaires' systems and the central system.

This is a technical procedure update, not a new licensing instrument. According to ADM's revision table, version 1.2.1 changes particular message fields, formats and response codes used in protocol tests. The reader decision is therefore bounded: identify the procedure that applies to the system and compare its implementation with the revised test sequence.

What changed in version 1.2.1

ADM's revision table records a defined set of amendments. In the fixed-odds betting procedure, section 4.6 changes how additional information is handled in the reporting of official results. In the simulated-events procedure, section 9.24 removes the expired-ticket list message and section 9.26 updates the code used for the keep-alive message.

The largest group of changes appears in the remote-gaming and bingo procedures. Section 10.1 now specifies the date and time format for a gaming session. Sections 10.2.1 and 10.3.1 add the participation amount to the first session in the relevant test sequence and introduce accounting-report return code 2499. Sections 10.4.1, 10.5.1 and 10.6.1 also add code 2499 to the procedures for their respective game types.

For remote bingo, section 10.7.1 adds return codes 2499 and 1902 and changes the ATTRVAL_CAR value used in the test. Section 10.7.2 makes a further change to ATTRVAL_CAR. These amendments are narrow, but they alter the reference against which the corresponding protocol messages are checked.

Taken together, the revision table identifies changes in fixed-odds betting, simulated events, remote-game session reporting and bingo. It does not present those changes as amendments to every procedure in the document.

How the verification framework applies

The document is organised as separate procedures for the communication protocols used across the Italian gambling market. It covers fixed-odds sports betting, horse-race betting, direct-interaction betting, pools, retail betting, simulated events, remote skill games, fixed-odds games of chance, card games, remote bingo and the central register of gaming accounts.

The ADM document describes a process in which a verification body requests a test window through the dedicated portal; it states that Sogei then makes the automated procedures available to check implementation of the prescribed messages.

The PDF presents each protocol in a separate procedure. The practical comparison is therefore protocol-specific: locate the procedure relevant to the message flow being verified, then identify the revised step, field, format or return code recorded for that procedure.

The document also retains the player-account procedure, covering account opening, sub-registration, account movements, software-integrity hashes, account status, self-exclusion, disconnection, identity-document changes, residence data, spending limits, email changes and account enquiries. The version 1.2.1 revision table does not identify a new amendment to each of those controls; they remain part of the consolidated verification reference.

What concessionaires should check

The immediate task is a protocol-by-protocol comparison against the version 1.2.1 revision table. Fixed-odds betting implementations should be checked against the amended additional-information step. Simulated-events implementations should be checked for the removed expired-ticket message and the updated keep-alive code.

Remote-gaming implementations should be checked for the specified session date and time format, the added participation amount and the use of return code 2499 in the affected accounting-report tests. Remote-bingo implementations should be checked for codes 2499 and 1902 and for the revised ATTRVAL_CAR values.

That review should stay tied to the affected protocol procedure. The legal and operational question is not whether ADM has announced a new substantive gambling rule, but whether the system presented for verification implements the message specification that the current procedure now tests.

ADM's publication notice does not state a separate transition deadline and does not describe version 1.2.1 as creating new licence conditions. The unresolved point is when version 1.2.1 will govern an individual verification; the publication materials do not identify that application date.