Chilean senators propose tougher enforcement of online gambling site blocks
Two Chilean senators have introduced legislation aimed at stopping unauthorised gambling websites from getting around court-ordered blocks by moving to new domains and mirror sites.
The bill was presented by Esteban Velásquez and Alejandra Sepúlveda. It would amend the Code of Civil Procedure to strengthen enforcement of website-blocking orders.
The problems with blocking betting platforms prompted the bill, but its provisions would apply to blocking orders more widely.
Senate records show the proposal, Bulletin 18.699-07, was introduced on 30 September and is still under consideration.
In their explanation of the bill, the senators said gambling in Chile needs express legal authorisation. However, digital platforms have allowed operators without permission to offer online betting in the country.
They cite Supreme Court rulings against unauthorised betting sites. These include a September 2023 decision in favour of state lottery operator Polla Chilena de Beneficencia. They also include a 29 September 2025 ruling in a case brought by lottery operator Lotería de Concepción against internet providers.
The senators say those rulings have not stopped the platforms from operating. Operators can change domains or create new routes for users to reach their services.
Banks should blok transfers
The motion also cites instructions from Chile’s telecommunications regulator, the Subsecretaría de Telecomunicaciones (Subtel). Subtel told internet providers to block 42 addresses on 1 September and another 37 domains, subdomains and mirror sites on 21 September.
After the first deadline passed, lawmakers from Chile’s Independent Democratic Union (UDI) asked the country’s financial regulator, the Financial Market Commission (CMF), to order banks to block transfers to betting sites.
“It makes no sense to order the blocking of sites linked to these platforms when, in parallel and within hours, betting companies create new domains and continue receiving thousands of transactions as normal,” the lawmakers said, according to CNN Chile.
New duties for internet providers
The bill would add three articles to the Code of Civil Procedure.
Under the first, court orders would have to list the domains, subdomains or addresses to be blocked. They would also have to name the companies responsible for carrying out the order and set a deadline.
Internet providers would then have to report when the block took effect, which addresses it covered and what technical methods they used.
Courts could extend orders to new domains, mirror sites or redirection tools leading to the same platforms. Any extension would need evidence linking the new addresses to the original services, as well as a reasoned court decision.
Blocking measures would have to be technically appropriate, proportionate and limited to the services covered by the ruling. Anyone whose lawful services were wrongly affected could ask for the block to be reviewed, changed or lifted.
The second article covers internet providers suspected of not complying. Courts could ask them for information on the steps they had taken. They could also impose coercive measures under existing law on providers that refuse to carry out blocks without justification or that supply false information.
Providers would have to prove any technical difficulties they cite. A properly demonstrated technical impossibility would not, on its own, be grounds for criminal liability.
Tougher on blocking of unlicensed sites
The third article targets people expressly bound by a court order who deliberately create new domains or mirror sites to get around a block they have been notified of. Courts could order those measures reversed, extend existing blocks and impose coercive measures, without ruling out criminal liability.
The proposal is separate from the main bill to regulate online betting platforms, which is before the Senate.
In October, the government presented amendments to that bill to the Senate Economy Committee. These amendments include tougher blocking of unlicensed sites and requirements to reject transactions with platforms on a regulator’s list. Those payment obligations would apply to entities the CMF decides have effective blocking capacity.