2026 kicked off with three significant decisions by Italian authorities that shed light on where journalism ends and privacy begins. Here’s what you need to know. The common thread?Private information can only be shared when there’s a genuine public interest at stake.

SANGIULIANO CASE. On January 22, 2026, the Court of Rome threw out a Euro 150,000 fine that the Italian Data Protection Authority had slapped on public broadcaster RAI. The offense? Airing a private phone call between former Culture Minister Sangiuliano and his wife on the investigative show “Report”. The call touched on the Minister’s alleged affair and his wife’s demand to revoke institutional appointments supposedly given to the other woman.

The Court’s verdict? The broadcast served a legitimate public interest. Yes, the content was personal, but it raised serious questions about whether top government appointments were being handed out based on personal relationships rather than merit. In the Court’s own words, the conversations touched upon “a topic which is certainly of public interest, relating to the possibility that the assignment of high institutional positions may be influenced by matters of a purely personal nature”.

SIGNORINI CASE. Just four days later, on January 26, 2026, the Court of Milan took swift action against Mr. Corona, ordering the immediate takedown of all defamatory content he had posted about Mr. Signorini on his podcast “Falsissimo“. This included private conversations, intimate photos, and sexually explicit material. The Court also prohibited any further dissemination.

The Court expressly excluded the applicability of the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Italian Constitution, finding that no public interest existed that was capable of justifying such a serious intrusion into personal privacy. It emphasized that the disseminated material concerned exclusively Mr. Signorini’s sexual preferences and habits, which, in themselves, do not constitute matters of public concern. Moreover, the Court did not find sufficient evidence supporting Mr. Corona’s claim that the disclosures revealed a system of sexual blackmail within the entertainment industry. Lastly, the Court noted that Mr. Corona is not a journalist and therefore cannot benefit from the constitutional safeguards afforded to the press.

GARLASCO CASE. On January 30, 2026, the Italian Data Protection Authority issued a formal measure addressed to journalists, warning against the disclosure of names and personal details in media reconstructions of the Garlasco case that go beyond what is strictly necessary for informational purposes. The Authority noted that the level of detail in some articles and TV coverage was turning legitimate news into a “morbid spectacle.” This kind of reporting, they warned, violates the principle of essentiality of information and breaches both data protection laws and journalistic ethics.

Despite their different facts, all three decisions reaffirm a core principle of Italian case law: privacy is constitutionally protected, but it’s not absolute. Courts must always balance it against other fundamental rights, especially press freedom.

The bottom line? Sharing private information is only acceptable when there’s a concrete and legitimate public interest.