Blocking online gambling sites: new legal challenges for digital enforcement in Chile
The Under-Secretariat for Telecommunications (Subtel) has ordered the blocking of 42 online betting and gambling sites operating outside the scope of current regulations. The measure, announced on 1 September, must be implemented by the main internet service providers within a maximum of 48 hours by means of DNS blocking.
Beyond the debate over the legality of betting platforms, the measure is particularly significant for a broader reason: the consolidation of blocking access to certain digital platforms as a mechanism for enforcement and effective protection on the internet.
A measure arising from a court ruling
Subtel’s action is in compliance with rulings by the Supreme Court and the Santiago Court of Appeal, within the framework of an application for protection brought by the Concepción Lottery against telecommunications companies.
On the basis of these decisions, Subtel notified Entel, Movistar, Claro, GTD, WOM and VTR of a list of 42 URLs provided by the Superintendency of Casinos (SCJ), instructing them to block these via DNS. The operators must subsequently provide evidence to the Court of Appeal that they have complied with the order. The list includes websites and domains associated with online betting and gambling platforms, including Betano, 1xBet, Betsson, Stake, Betcris and other services, as well as various domains corresponding to mirror sites or variants of previously identified platforms.
From a one-off block to a dynamic mechanism
One of the most significant aspects of this measure is that it does not appear to be conceived as an isolated action targeting a fixed list of sites. Subtel itself points out that, given the dynamic nature of these platforms, the procedure may be applied successively to new domains, subdomains or mirror sites, provided they are specific, verifiable and have been previously validated by the Superintendency of Casinos.
This is particularly relevant in the digital environment, where blocking a domain can be quickly circumvented by using a new address or a mirror site. The challenge of digital enforcement, therefore, lies not merely in obtaining a blocking order, but in developing mechanisms capable of adapting to the platforms’ ability to modify their infrastructure and reappear under new addresses.
Why DNS?
The measure is also of interest from both a technological and legal perspective. According to the technical report presented by Subtel, the Court of Appeal upheld blocking via the Domain Name System (DNS) as a suitable and proportionate alternative, considering that it safeguards net neutrality and user privacy whilst reducing the risk of over-blocking lawful services.
This introduces a particularly relevant element in any policy on blocking online content or services: the need to balance the effectiveness of the measure with the rights and interests of third parties who legitimately use the internet infrastructure.
The block comes as Congress debates new legislation
Subtel’s measure also comes as Congress makes progress in its discussion of the draft bill regulating the development of online gambling platforms, contained in Bulletin No. 14.838-03.
The bill is currently in its second reading and provides for the creation of an authorisation and supervision regime for online gambling platforms. Among other aspects, it proposes that operators must obtain a licence, sets out corporate and transparency requirements regarding their ultimate beneficial owners, incorporates rules on responsible gambling and the protection of children and adolescents, regulates advertising and establishes specific mechanisms to prevent and penalise illegal gambling.
The initiative also provides for institutional strengthening. The current Superintendency of Casinos would be renamed the Superintendency of Casinos, Betting and Games of Chance, with new supervisory powers, whilst provision is made for greater information sharing between bodies such as the SII, the UAF, the CMF, Subtel and the Public Prosecutor’s Office.
Regulation still a work in progress
The bill has not yet been passed into law. Throughout 2026, its passage through Parliament has continued in the Senate, and the Economy Committee agreed to work alongside the Executive in a technical working group to review the outstanding amendments before proceeding with its detailed debate.
This situation creates a particularly interesting scenario: whilst Congress debates the rules that should govern the online betting market, the courts and the sectoral authority are using the tools currently available to tackle platforms operating without authorisation.
Blocking thus appears as an enforcement measure in response to an existing reality, whilst the draft bill seeks to establish the permanent regulatory framework that will determine which operators may operate, under what conditions and with what oversight mechanisms.
A model that goes beyond betting
Nor is this development occurring in isolation. During 2026, Subtel also intervened in the enforcement of court orders aimed at blocking IPTV services that broadcast audiovisual content without authorisation, such as Magis TV, Flujo TV and Xuper TV.
Although these involve different phenomena and legal grounds, both cases reveal a common trend: the use of internet service providers as the point of enforcement for certain judicial measures aimed at preventing access to digital services deemed unlawful. In the field of intellectual property, this phenomenon is particularly relevant to the fight against audiovisual piracy and the protection of digitally distributed content.
The blocking of these 42 sites represents more than just a new initiative against online gambling platforms. It demonstrates how digital enforcement in Chile is evolving towards more coordinated and dynamic mechanisms, in which judicial decisions, sectoral authorities, internet service providers and technological tools converge.
At the same time, the legislative debate demonstrates that blocking cannot replace regulation. A sustainable response requires clearly defining which activities are authorised, who may carry them out, under what conditions, and what tools exist to effectively prosecute those operating outside the law.
The question that remains is whether this model will ultimately become established as a cross-cutting tool for digital enforcement in Chile, and what standards will need to be observed to ensure that it is, at the same time, effective, proportionate and respectful of users’ rights and the open nature of the internet.
