Art. 14(3) of Decree-Law No. 202/2024, converted into law, with amendments, by Law No. 15/2025, provides for the extension to 31 December 2025 of the transitional regime during which, in the absence of specific provisions set out in the applicable national collective labour agreement, the employer may enter into a fixed-term employment contract exceeding 12 months but in any case not exceeding the limit of 24 months – in the presence of requirements of a i) technical, ii) organisational, or iii) productive nature.
The parties to an individual subordinate employment contract may agree to set a fixed term for the contract,not exceeding 12 months. A fixed term exceeding 12 months is only permitted in the following cases:
- Where explicitly provided for by the national, territorial, or company-level collective labour agreement signed by the most representative trade unions at the national level, or by their company-level union representatives or the unitary workplace union representative body;
- In the absence of a specific provision in the collective labour agreement, where there is a requirement of a technical, organisational, or productive nature identified by the parties. As mentioned above, this solution is temporary and may be applied only until 31 December 2025;
- For the replacement of other employees.Initially, the option referred to in point 2) above was available only until 30 April 2024.
This deadline was subsequently extended to 31 December 2024 to allow collective bargaining to introduce its own regulation on the matter. To compensate for the (ongoing) lack of specific provisions in this area within collective bargaining, the duration of the transitional regime has been further extended for the period from 28 December 2024 to 31 December 2025.
Therefore, under the current legislation, an employer may enter into a fixed-term subordinate employment contract exceeding 12 months in the following cases:
- For the replacement of other employees,
- In cases specifically regulated by the applicable collective labour agreement,
- In the absence of specific provisions in the applicable collective labour agreement, until 31 December 2025, for proven and specific requirements of a i) technical, ii) organisational, or iii) productive nature.
Given the growing importance of digital marketing, it has become necessary to officially classify activities related to content creation for digital platforms by introducing the new ATECO code 73.11.03 for i)“influencer marketing” and ii)“content creator”.
This ATECO classification, which comes into effect on 1 January 2025, will be applicable from 1 April 2025. With circular message no. 44/2025, INPS has shared its position on the correct social security management of digital content creation activities, which should be assessed based on: i) the manner in which they are performed, ii) the nature of the service provided, iii) the organisational model adopted, and iv) the methods of remuneration.
The Role of the Content Creator
INPS defines“content creators” as workers engaged in digital content creation. This activity includes several more specific functions, such as:
- Influencer activities, performed by individuals who, due to their popularity within the community of digital platform users, can influence public opinion and preferences by promoting goods or services in exchange for money or other benefits,
- Content production, distinguished by the distribution medium used (e.g., YouTuber, streamer, podcaster, Instagrammer, etc.) or the type of content created,
- Pro-gamer or cyber-athlete activities, referring to individuals who professionally participate in electronic sports (e-sports) competitions in order to win prizes and/or for entertainment purposes.
Digital Content Creation
Digital content creation refers to the production of written materials, images, video recordings, audio content, or live-streamed content made available through
social digital platforms.
A content creator may receive remuneration for their activities through various payment methods, such as:
- Direct payment from the platform, which distributes a share of advertising revenue based on audience size or according to individual agreements. In this case, the content creator could be classified as a platform worker under Art. 2(1)(d) of Directive (EU) 2024/2831 of 23 October 2024,
- Payments from supporters through the intermediation of the platform. If the conditions set out in Art. 2(1)(c) of the aforementioned Directive (EU) 2024/2831 are met, the worker may be classified as platform worker,
- Sponsorship payments or direct product sales, without the intermediation of the content distribution plat-form.
Applicable Social Security Regulations
In the absence of specific legal provisions, and while awaiting the transposition of the aforementioned Directive by national legislators by 2 December 2026, the legal framework for determining the applicable social security regime for content creators is based on an asses-sment of the specific ways in which work is performed, its nature, and the payment methods.
A content creator may be classified as a self-employed worker, with the obligation to contribute to either the Autonomous Management Scheme for Commercial Operators or the Separate Management Scheme.
When the actual working conditions indicate self-employment, registration in the Autonomous Management Scheme for Commercial Operators is required if the activity is conducted as a business, either individually or in corporate form. This applies when the activity:
- Primarily relies on production tools rather than personal labour (e.g., managing advertising banners), thus falling within the tertiary sector,
- Involves uploading content to digital platforms,
- Consists of conducting marketing campaigns and other advertising services, as defined by ATECO code 73.11.02.
Registration in the Separate Management Scheme is required when self-employment:
- Is performed without subordination or continuous and coordinated collaboration, predominantly as a personal and intellectual activity,
- Involves simple endorsements, such as inserting advertisements on personal social media profiles.
Entertainment Workers
The entertainment workers’ social security regime applies to content creators who, under contractual obligations with a client (a brand or an intermediary agency), produce paid audiovisual content for advertising purposes. These activities align with professions included in the entertainment workers’ categories (e.g., actors, directors, models, etc.).
In such cases, content creators must be insured under the Entertainment Workers’ Pension Fund (FPLS), regardless of the contractual form of the employment relationship or the degree of autonomy in service provision. Consequently, the employer/client is responsible for making the necessary mandatory contributions. If the content creator is classified as an entertainment worker within artistic and technical categories, such as actors, models, or fashion models, and receives payment for the assignment of economic exploitation rights over their image or intellectual property, a preferential method for calculating the social security tax base is provided.
Specifically, these payments are excluded from taxable income for social security purposes up to 40% of the total amount received for the same professional activity, provided that:
- Parties explicitly agree on compensation for the assignment of rights,
- The activity relates to artistic professions as identified by law.
INPS also clarifies that a content creator engaged indigital marketing – by disseminating photos, videos, and comments on blogs, vlogs, and social media to promote commercial brands– should be classified as an entertainment worker.
In such cases, the produced content is akin to advertising materials, requiring compliance with commercial communication regulations, including television advertising, sponsorships, and product placements and the prohibition of hidden advertising.
Work conducted within advertising programmes is fully recognised as an artistic activity, entitling workers to the accrual of social security contribution under FPLS, which must be paid by the commissioning brand, regardless of the contractual arrangement.
A recent but isolated judicial ruling, conflicting with INPS’s position, has stated that when an influencer regularly and continuously promotes an online brand’s products, they should be classified as a commercial agent. The refore, the worker would be considered self-employed, requiring registration both with the Autonomous Management Scheme for Commercial Operators and with ENASARCO.
Sports Workers
For pro-gamers or cyber-athletes, who engage professionally in e-sports, the social security framework depends on the contracts concluded between the player and the representative teams competing in digital tour – naments.
Employment relationships in this field may fall within the social security regulations for sports workers if the specific e-sport discipline is recognised by CONI as a sport and included in:
- The National Register of Amateur Sports Activities under the Department for Sport of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers,
- The CONI Register.
In its response to query no. 66 of 6 March 2025, Agenzia delle Entrate clarified on the new special tax regime for‘inpatriate’ workers set out in Article 5 of Legislative Decree No. 209/2023. The Agency confirmed that the previous stance adopted by the tax authorities, under which the special regime could be applied provided that a functional link between the transfer of tax residency to Italy and the commencement of work in Italy was demonstrated, is now definitively superseded.
Art. 5 of Legislative Decree No. 209/2023 states that a worker transferring their tax residency to Italy is eligible for the special tax regime, under which only 50% of the income earned in Italy is considered for tax purposes, up to a maximum of EUR 600,000 annually. This applies provided that the worker has not been tax resident in Italy for the three years prior to the transfer of tax residency.
If the worker performs work in Italy for i) the same entity they were employed by abroad before transferring their tax residency, or ii) an entity within the same group, the minimum requirement of time spent abroad is extended as follows:
- 6 tax periods if the worker has not been employed in Italy by the same entity or a related group entity prior to the transfer,
- 7 tax periods if the worker had been employed in Italy by the same entity or a related group entity before moving abroad. Entities are considered part of the same group if i) they are under direct or indirect control of one another or ii) are under common direct or indirect control by another entity (Article 2359, paragraph 1, no.1 of the Civil Code).
The application of the special tax regime is also subject to the following conditions:
- The worker must maintain their tax residency in Italy for at least 4 years,
- The worker must perform the majority of their employment activity in Italy during the tax period,
- The worker must have a high level of qualification or specialization, evidenced by:
- A higher education qualification issued by the competent authority in the country where it was obtained, attesting to the completion of at least three years of higher education and the corresponding higher professional qualification, classified within levels 1, 2, and 3 o the ISTAT classification of professions CP 2011, as amended, recognized both in the country of origin and in Italy,
- The necessary qualifications for the practice of regulated professions.
Without prejudice to the above, regarding the special tax regime in force until 31 December 2023, the Revenue Agency repeatedly considered it necessary for the application of this regime to establish a functional link between the transfer of tax residency to Italy and the start of work in Italy. More precisely, the tax authorities held that the special tax regime was applicable only when there was a connection between the event of transferring tax residency to Italy and the commencement of employment.
This stance, developed in practice, has been contested by more recent case law, which found that Art.16 of Legislative Decree No. 147/2015 did not require such a link (CGT Milan, ruling no. 1709/2023 and CGT Milan, ruling no. 3759/2024).
Through the ruling in question– concerning the application of the current special regime for inpatriate workers under Art. 5 of Legislative Decree No. 209/2023 – the Revenue Agency has definitively overcome its previous interpretative approach, clarifying that it is no longer necessary to verify the existence of a functional link between the transfer of tax residency to Italy and the commencement of a taxable work activity carried out in Italy.
Therefore, the special tax regime may apply even in cases where, for instance, a worker, provided they meet the personal requirements set out in Art. 5 of Legislative Decree No. 209/2024, transfers their tax residency toItaly at the beginning of 2025, without having agreed to any future employment contract in Italy, and only in the months following the transfer does the worker sign an employment contract that involves working in Italy for the majority of the tax period.
Corte di Cassazione, in its judgment no. 1321/2025, clarified the difference between leaving and abandoning the workplace and, at the same time, rejected the appeal of a worker who had been dismissed on disciplinary grounds for abandoning his post.
In challenging the Court of Appeal’s decision, the worker argued on the definition of workplace abandonment, as set out in the relevant collective labour agreement, which provided for dismissal only in cases where personnel entrusted with surveillance, custody, or control duties abandoned their post.
In this specific case, the competent Court found that the situation constituted abandonment of the workplace due to the distance between the place where the worker was supposed to perform their duties and the location where he was found, which required the use of a vehicle. As a result, the worker’s link to the workplace was deemed severed, as his duties could not have been resumed immediately or within a reasonably short time-frame.
The worker challenged this interpretation, asserting that permanence was key to defining abandonment and arguing that, in his case:
- His absences were minimal,
- They did not affect the regular performance of service,
- There was no intent to abandon the post.
Corte di Cassazione rejected this argument, reaffirming established case law which states that the distinction between leaving and abandoning the workplace – although partially overlapping – lies in the duration of the worker’s absence. Specifically, leaving the workplace occurs only when the absence does not affect the proper functioning of the service.
However, the Court noted that the concept of permanence and its effect on service operations should not be assessed in abstract terms and must instead be evaluated concretely, considering:
- Objectively: the extent of the worker’s breach of their supervisory duties, as abandonment entails a complete detachment from the protected asset, and the duration of the conduct and its impact on service requirements (although abandonment does not require the absence to last for the entire remaining working shift),
- Subjectively: the conscious and voluntary nature of the abandonment, regardless of the worker’s intent, unless there are exculpatory reasons, while the reason for leaving the workplace is irrelevant.
Applying these principles to the case at hand, Corte di Cassazione found that, based on factual evidence (such as the worker’s duty to guard an extensive public asset and the fact that he was found approximately 1 km away from his assigned post), the absences directly affected service requirements. As a result, they undermined the very essence of the worker’s duties – namely, custody of the assigned asset– and justified disciplinary termination of employment.
We remain available for any further clarification.