Chile's New Amendments to Online Betting Regulations Explained

Chile extends deadline for amendments to online betting regulation

The Government failed to submit its amendments to the bill regulating online betting houses and their compliance with regulations, currently in its second legislative stage in the Senate, within the original deadline. In contrast, the President of the Upper House, Paulina Núñez (RN), introduced a proposal to ban them outright.

The deadline was set to expire last Friday at noon, but Senate committees agreed to extend it until Monday, October 26, at 12:00 PM. According to sources at La Moneda, the delay was due to differences between Segpres and the Ministries of Finance, Economy, Justice, and Health regarding the drafting of the amendments.

"An additional timeframe was deemed necessary"

The ministry led by José García Ruminot (RN) dismissed this version of events, stating that they are actively seeking to reach agreements. "This is a long-standing bill, the progress of which requires reviewing various regulations and matters and building broad consensus," Segpres indicated.

For his part, Biminister Claudio Alvarado also defended the need to extend the deadline to reach a consensus on the proposals. "Various meetings have taken place, and within that communication, that dialogue, and the search for consensus on the amendments, it was deemed necessary to have an additional timeframe," he maintained.

Meanwhile, Núñez presented an amendment seeking to eliminate online betting companies entirely.

"They are not an innocent business"

The proposal includes penalties under the new regulations of up to 15 years in prison, the permanent judicial blocking of illegal platforms, and aggravated sanctions when criminal organizations are involved.

"Online betting houses are not an innocent business. They can cause addiction, crippling debt, and devastating consequences for families," the senator stated.

Furthermore, she questioned the State collecting tax revenue from this activity without considering its downstream consequences. "The State cannot become a tax partner in a problem it has a duty to prevent," she concluded.