Italy’s fashion sector is the world’s second-largest by export value and is home to a disproportionate share of global luxury production. It is currently facing one of the most demanding compliance environments in recent history.

Sustainability mandates, the rapid adoption of artificial intelligence, and renewed attention to “Made in Italy” industrial policy are reshaping market conduct and compliance. This article surveys the key legal trends shaping Italian fashion law in 2026, highlighting where national rules and enforcement practice create distinctive risks and opportunities.

Sustainability Regulation in Italy: From Voluntary to Mandatory

The era of voluntary sustainability pledges in fashion is drawing to a close as legislators across major markets move decisively towards binding obligations, fundamentally altering the compliance burden on fashion brands, manufacturers and retailers.

In the European Union, the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) has entered phased implementation, requiring large fashion companies to identify, prevent and mitigate adverse human rights and environmental impacts throughout their value chains. For operators in Italy, this will mandate the integration of enforceable sustainability standards into supply contracts and evidence of active monitoring, not mere reliance on certifications. Italian groups should map overlaps with organisational and management models under Legislative Decree 231/2001 to align due diligence governance with corporate liability controls.

The EU’s Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR) is reshaping product development. Fashion items placed on the EU market will progressively need to meet minimum durability, repairability and recyclability standards. Digital Product Passports (DPPs) for textiles will require granular information on composition, origin and environmental footprint. Italian brands should plan DPP data architecture in tandem with traceability projects already used for “Made in Italy” disclosures under Law No 206/2023, which promotes and protects Italian manufacturing and craftsmanship.

At a national level, Italy is coupling EU obligations with targeted industrial policy. The “Made in Italy” Law establishes funding and measures to support the green and digital transition of the textile/fashion/accessories supply chain (Article 11), implemented by an 8 August 2024 interministerial decree with a dedicated application window managed by Invitalia (the national agency for the country’s growth, wholly owned by the Ministry of Economy and Finance). Brands operating in Italy should therefore treat sustainability compliance and public funding opportunities as part of the same roadmap.

More specifically, the law operates on three levels that fashion businesses should map in detail.

• First, on funding: Article 4 establishes the Fondo Nazionale del Made in Italy, with an initial endowment of EUR1 billion to support strategic national supply chains, including circular economy models. For the sake of completeness, the Fondo Nazionale del Made in Italy became fully operational on 15 May 2025, following the enactment of the required implementing decree, which was necessary to define eligibility requirements, investment criteria, intervention types, private co-investment modalities, and the appointment of the fund manager, adopted by the Minister of Economy and Finance, in concert with the Minister of Enterprises and Made in Italy, on 25 February 2025. Article 11 allocates EUR15 million specifically for the green and digital transition of the textil/fashion/accessories sector.
• Second, on origin certification: Article 41 introduces a voluntary official “Made in Italy” origin mark, distinct from a trade mark and therefore not monopolisable, which companies producing goods on Italian territory may affix, subject to obtaining ministerial authorisation and meeting anti-falsification technical requirements.
• Third, on traceability technology: Article 47 explicitly promotes the use of distributed ledger technology (blockchain) to trace supply chain provenance. This provision is directly synergistic with the DPP data architecture requirements under ESPR. For Italian fashion groups, the strategic opportunity is to design a single traceability infrastructure that simultaneously satisfies ESPR compliance obligations and supports the commercial and legal value of the Made in Italy designation.

Greenwashing Enforcement in Italy: From Guidance to Penalties

Greenwashing has moved from a reputational concern to a significant source of legal exposure in Italy. In its role as consumer protection enforcer, the Italian Antitrust Authority (AGCM) is actively targeting misleading environmental claims in fashion and retail.

At the EU level, the regulatory framework on environmental claims has been significantly reinforced by Directive (EU) 2024/825 (the “Empowering Consumers Directive”), which tightens restrictions on the use of generic or unsubstantiated environmental claims through amendments to the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive. The Empowering Consumers Directive has been implemented in Italy by Legislative Decree 30/2026, which amends the Italian Consumer Code and strengthens the domestic regime on unfair commercial practices by introducing a more stringent set of rules targeting environmental claims.

In this context, fashion brands using broad claims such as “eco‑friendly” or “sustainable” without providing rigorous evidence face material and increasing risk of regulatory scrutiny, fines and corrective measures.

Recent AGCM practice underscores the growing enforcement risk in this area. In August 2025, the Authority fined a major global fast fashion retailer EUR1 million for its misleading communication strategy regarding the characteristics and environmental impact of its clothing products. In finding the unfairness of the retailer’s conduct, the Authority placed particular emphasis on the company’s heightened duty of diligence, noting that the sector to which it belongs and the business practices through which it operates – commonly associated with so-called “disposable fashion” (fast and ultra-fast fashion) – is inherently highly polluting.

More broadly, the AGCM has scrutinised sustainability claims across a range of sectors, signalling an assertive stance on environmental marketing in consumer‑facing industries.

The practical implications for fashion businesses operating in Italy are significant:

• all environmental claims must be supported by adequate, current and verifiable evidence;
• comparative claims such as “greener than” or “more sustainable than” require a clearly defined and disclosed basis of comparison;
• claims relating to future targets or net-zero commitments must be accompanied by credible, published transition plans; and
• brands operating across multiple jurisdictions must ensure claims comply with the highest applicable standard and take into account Italian enforcement practice, including clear baselines for comparative claims and auditable pathways for net‑zero commitments.

Artificial Intelligence in Italian Fashion: IP, Compliance and Liability

Artificial intelligence has become deeply embedded in the fashion value chain, from trend forecasting and generative design tools to personalised marketing and automated customer service. The legal questions surrounding AI in fashion have matured considerably in 2026, moving beyond theoretical debate into practical disputes and regulatory action.

The EU AI Act’s risk‑based regime applies directly in Italy as it is an EU Regulation, meaning it does not require national transposition, although Italy has also enacted Law No 132/2025 (Disposizioni e deleghe al Governo in materia di intelligenza artificiale). Most fashion uses will be “limited” or “minimal” risk, but AI‑driven recruitment tools, biometric categorisation in stores and some safety‑related systems may trigger higher‑tier obligations, including technical documentation, transparency measures and, where applicable, conformity assessments. Italian regulators are also scrutinising AI‑related consumer practices; brands should align AI governance with consumer protection and data protection expectations.

A pressing intellectual property question concerns the protectability and ownership of AI‑assisted designs and the defensive strategies against unauthorised use of proprietary works for AI training. Under Italian law, protection turns on human creativity and originality; the Italian Copyright Law (Law No 633/1941) and the Industrial Property Code (Codice della Proprietà Industriale, or CPI – Legislative Decree No 30/2005) require a discernible human creative contribution, and purely autonomous outputs are currently excluded from copyright protection. However, this means that, where the human contribution is sufficiently substantial – for instance, through the selection, arrangement and creative refinement of AI-generated elements, or through the formulation of detailed and original prompts that meaningfully shape the final output – the resulting work may nonetheless qualify for copyright protection under Italian law if it bears the imprint of the author’s intellectual creativity as required by Articles 1 and 2 of the Italian Copyright Law.

Italy’s “Made in Italy” Law adds a further layer here: it establishes a national registry of works by “digital creators” (defined as artists developing original works with high digital content) within the existing public register of protected works under Article 103 of the Italian Copyright Law. While the registry’s practical scope and its interaction with AI-assisted creative outputs are yet to be tested by courts and the competent authority, fashion brands working at the intersection of digital design and generative AI tooling should monitor its development as a potential mechanism for establishing authorship and prior creation, particularly when documenting the human creative contribution required to secure IP protection.

Fashion brands using generative AI tools in Italy should consider the following:

• whether the level of human creative input is sufficient to sustain a claim of authorship and originality under applicable law;
• the terms of service of the AI platform, which may retain rights over outputs or grant broad licences to other users;
• the risk that AI-generated designs may inadvertently reproduce elements of existing protected works present in the training data, giving rise to infringement claims;
• the need for internal governance policies that document human involvement in the creative process to support future IP claims; and
• the implementation of robust, machine-readable “opt-outs” (riserva di diritti) on their digital properties to prevent third parties from utilising their catalogues and lookbooks for Text and Data Mining (TDM) under Articles 70-ter and 70-quater of the Italian Copyright Law.

Supply Chain Transparency and Human Rights Due Diligence in Italy

Fashion supply chains remain among the most complex of any global industry. Regulatory expectations around transparency and human rights due diligence have intensified markedly.

Italy does not have a standalone “modern slavery” statute, but human rights and labour law due diligence is increasingly mandated via EU legislation and enforced through existing Italian frameworks. Companies should prepare for CSDDD alignment and leverage D.Lgs. 231/2001 organisational models to integrate human rights and environmental risk controls, supplier audits and remediation protocols into compliance programmes.

Fashion businesses with complex, multi‑tier supply chains must invest in mapping beyond Tier 1 into mills, dye houses and raw material producers, and must evidence remediation – not only termination – when adverse impacts are identified.

Against this background, it is also worth noting that the AGCM, in August 2025, fined a major Italian fashion group a total of EUR3.5 million for misleading commercial practices, finding that their public commitments to ethical and social responsibility were inconsistent with actual working conditions in their supply chain.

For fashion businesses operating from or into Italy, the key compliance challenges include:

• achieving meaningful visibility beyond Tier 1 suppliers into fabric mills, dye houses and raw material producers;
• ensuring that contractual mechanisms with suppliers are not merely paper exercises but are accompanied by genuine audit and remediation processes;
• managing the tension between commercial confidentiality and the increasing expectation of public disclosure regarding supply chain composition; and
• navigating the patchwork of national due diligence regimes that impose overlapping but not identical obligations on companies operating across multiple EU markets.

Digital Fashion

The market for digital fashion (eg, virtual garments, avatar wearables and NFT-linked fashion items) has continued to develop, albeit with greater commercial pragmatism than was evident in the initial speculative phase. The legal frameworks governing these assets have matured correspondingly.

The classification of digital fashion items raises important questions across multiple areas of law. From an intellectual property perspective, the creation of a virtual replica of a physical garment may constitute an infringement of the original design right, trade mark or copyright, depending on the jurisdiction and the degree of similarity. Several trade mark disputes involving luxury brands and virtual world developers have provided early judicial guidance, broadly confirming that trade mark protection extends to virtual goods where there is a likelihood of confusion or association with the registered trade mark, particularly following the formal integration of virtual goods and NFTs into Class 9 of the Nice Classification and the subsequent EUIPO examination guidelines.

Consequently, brand owners must proactively audit and broaden their trade mark portfolios to cover digital iterations of their core assets, while monitoring the metaverse for unauthorised digital twins.

Consumer protection obligations apply to the sale of digital fashion items. Purchasers must receive clear pre-contractual information regarding what they are acquiring, including any limitations on use, transferability or interoperability across platforms. The characterisation of digital fashion purchases – whether as sales of goods, licences or services – has direct implications for consumer remedies in the event of defects or platform closure.

Trade Marks, Design Rights and Brand Protection in Italy

The core intellectual property challenges facing fashion businesses have evolved but not diminished. Counterfeiting remains a pervasive problem, increasingly facilitated by online marketplaces and social media platforms.

The EU Digital Services Act (DSA) introduces duties for online platforms to act against illegal content, including listings for counterfeit goods, and gives rights-holders enhanced notice‑and‑action mechanisms. Italian rights-holders should update platform enforcement playbooks and co-ordinate with marketplace operators accordingly, bearing in mind the supervisory role assumed by the Italian Communications Regulatory Authority (AGCOM) at the national level.

In Italy and the EU, the registration of non‑traditional trade marks (colours, patterns, shapes) continues to face high distinctiveness thresholds. Applicants must show that the relevant public perceives the sign as an indicator of origin rather than mere ornamentation. Brands should plan early evidence‑gathering for acquired distinctiveness and consider parallel design filings taking full advantage of the modernised framework introduced by the EU Design Legislative Package, which explicitly accommodates digital designs and 3D printing, and broadens the protection of complex product features.

Italian policy has also shifted with the 2023 “Made in Italy” Law, which aims to valorise Italian creativity and craftsmanship, and strengthens anti‑counterfeiting initiatives and sectoral support programmes. Brands should monitor funding calls and consider how authenticity and traceability tools (such as blockchain-backed registries) can complement traditional trade mark and design enforcement.

Two provisions of the law deserve particular attention from fashion IP practitioners. Article 7 introduces a pre-notification obligation for owners of trade marks registered (or demonstrably used) for at least 50 years who intend to cease trading permanently: the Ministry of Enterprises and Made in Italy (MIMIT) must be notified in advance and may, where it identifies a national interest, acquire the mark gratuitously to preserve its continuity. For marks unused for at least five years, MIMIT may independently file a registration application with a view to licensing to inward investors. This mechanism has direct implications for M&A structuring, succession planning and wind-down strategies for any Italian fashion house carrying a legacy mark, and counsel advising on such transactions should factor in the notification requirement at the earliest stage.

On anti-counterfeiting, the law tightens administrative sanctions for the purchase and importation of counterfeit goods, amends criminal provisions on the sale of industrial products with misleading signs, and promotes specialist training for justice operators, with tools that rights-holders should integrate into their broader enforcement playbooks alongside DSA notice and action mechanisms.

Data Protection and Personalisation in Italy

Fashion retail has become intensely data-driven. Personalised marketing, loyalty programmes, AI-powered size recommendations and in-store behavioural analytics all depend on the collection and processing of personal data, frequently including special category data where biometric measurements are involved.

The EU/Italian GDPR framework imposes strict requirements on lawful bases, minimisation and transparency. Legitimate interests remain available for certain direct marketing activities subject to a careful balancing test, but consent is typically required for cookie‑based tracking and advanced profiling in loyalty ecosystems.

The increasing use of biometric technologies and in‑store tracking raises acute concerns in Italy. The Garante per la protezione dei dati personali has shown a robust enforcement approach to retail and platform use of personal data, sanctioning loyalty programme mismanagement by several prominent fashion and retail operators, and intensifying scrutiny of automated decision‑making and geolocation in the platform economy. For worker‑facing tools, decisions against Foodinho/Glovo highlight expectations on algorithmic transparency and biometric/geo‑tracking limits.

Cross‑border transfers remain a live issue for Italian fashion groups, which should rely on EU mechanisms (including adequacy and the Data Privacy Framework, where applicable) and maintain Transfer Impact Assessments. Retailers should also refresh cookie and SDK consent designs following evolving enforcement practice, and keep records of profiling assessments for loyalty programmes.

Employment and Platform Work in Italy’s Fashion Ecosystem

The fashion industry’s workforce spans a broad spectrum, from highly paid creative directors to garment workers at the lower end of the value chain. Employment law developments in 2026 are affecting fashion businesses across this range.

Italian fashion businesses rely extensively on freelancers and platform‑mediated services, from creative talent to last‑mile logistics. Engagement models must reflect the legal reality of control and integration, including collective bargaining and social security implications. Recent Garante decisions on platform workers also intersect with employment compliance by constraining opaque algorithmic management and off‑hours geolocation (see Foodinho/Glovo decisions cited above).

Diversity, equity and inclusion remain central for Italian fashion houses, driven by EU anti‑discrimination law and investor expectations. Many larger employers are also preparing for sustainability reporting that captures workforce metrics, requiring better data quality and governance across HR systems.

The gig‑economy model in logistics and last‑mile delivery continues to attract regulatory attention in Italy. E‑commerce players that rely on riders and couriers should monitor developments on platform work at EU and national level and ensure that contractual frameworks, health and safety measures and algorithmic transparency standards are met.

Looking Ahead for Italy

The Italian regulatory environment in 2026 is defined by convergence and acceleration. Sustainability, technology and human rights obligations are no longer siloed: CSDDD phased implementation is already placing due diligence obligations on the largest Italian groups, with mid-tier companies entering scope progressively through 2027–2028.

At the same time, the AGCM has shown an increasingly strong focus on greenwashing enforcement, indicating that close scrutiny of environmental and sustainability claims will remain a key priority in the near future.

In parallel, ESPR-delegated acts on textiles are expected to enter force in the near term, triggering the first concrete DPP implementation deadlines.

Against this backdrop, brands that treat compliance as a strategic lever rather than a cost centre – using “Made in Italy” funding instruments to finance traceability infrastructure that simultaneously serves regulatory and commercial purposes – will be best placed to absorb the compliance wave.

Practically, this means:

• investing now in DPP-ready data architecture and multi-tier supply chain visibility;
• ensuring AI tools deployed across the value chain are governed by documented human oversight policies that will withstand both IP and AI Act scrutiny; and
• aligning sustainability communications with the level of evidentiary substantiation expected by enforcement authorities.

The intersection of creativity, “Made in Italy” identity and regulatory compliance is demanding, but firms that navigate it well stand to consolidate competitive advantage precisely where market entrants find the barriers highest.