In Chile, simply blocking a web address is no longer sufficient to comply with a court order against unlicensed online gaming platforms. That is, in essence, the conclusion of the ruling issued by the Chilean Supreme Court which redefines the obligations of telecommunications companies in the face of this type of restriction. The decision not only resolves a specific conflict between operators and the judiciary but also establishes a new standard on what it truly means to execute a judgment in the digital environment.
Read more Philippines: online gaming consolidates as the market’s main driver
The origin of the conflict: a judgment that was not fully complied with
It all began with a court order issued in September 2025, which instructed the country’s main telecommunications operators to block access to certain online betting platforms operating without legal authorization in Chile. Behind this action were the Lotería de Concepción and Polla Chilena de Beneficencia, two state entities that compete directly with unregulated private operators and warned from the outset that an incomplete block would be easily circumvented.
Their warning proved accurate. The affected platforms responded with a common tactic in the sector: activating mirror sites and modifying their URL addresses to maintain uninterrupted access from Chile. Users attempting to access via the blocked link were simply redirected or found the same platform under a different address.
The technical argument used by telcos and why it did not succeed
Faced with this reality, Claro, Entel, GTD, Movistar, WOM, and VTR maintained that they had complied with what they technically could do: block the main link of each platform. They also argued that extending this block to mirror sites or alternative URLs that operators use as an escape could cause collateral damage to other internet services, affecting users who have nothing to do with betting.
The Santiago Court of Appeals accepted this reasoning in March 2026 and dismissed the case, despite openly acknowledging that the platforms continued to operate normally. For the telcos, the resolution represented operational relief. For the Supreme Court, however, that decision constituted a serious error: dismissing a case while admitting that the judgment had not been executed has no legal or logical basis, and sets an unacceptable precedent regarding the effectiveness of the judicial system against digital infringements.
What the ruling establishes and what changes for operators
The highest court was categorical on two fronts. On the one hand, it recalled that there is a firm judgment with res judicata effect and that allowing, by omission, these platforms to remain active is equivalent to tolerating an activity without legal or administrative backing in the country. Omission, in this context, is not neutral: it is a form of non-compliance.
Read more UKGC reveals that financial risk controls impact fewer players than expected
On the other hand, the Supreme Court upheld a formal complaint against the ministers of the Court of Appeals responsible for dismissing the case, classifying their actions as constituting a serious fault or abuse. This classification is not minor: it implies disciplinary consequences for the judges involved and underscores that the higher court considers the error committed was not a difference of opinion but a breach of official duties.
The case now returns to the Santiago Court of Appeals for the non-disqualified judges to determine and implement concrete and enforceable measures. In practice, operators are obliged to go much further than the initial block: they must track and restrict access to any alternative address that betting houses use to remain accessible from Chile, regardless of how many times they change their URL or activate new mirror domains.
The technical challenge telcos face from now on
The obligation arising from the ruling is not easy to execute. Unlike blocking a fixed address, pursuing mirror sites implies continuous monitoring, as operators can generate new URLs quickly and at low cost. Operators will have to develop or contract systems capable of detecting these variants in real-time and applying the corresponding restrictions without affecting legitimate internet traffic.
This type of challenge is not exclusive to Chile. In markets such as the United Kingdom, Italy, or Spain, regulators have developed dynamic blocking mechanisms that periodically update lists of restricted domains, in coordination with the competent judicial or administrative authorities. Chile does not yet have an equivalent system, which makes the execution of this ruling a process that will likely require additional technical and legal definitions in the coming months.
Read more Brazil opens a new political front with proposal to eliminate the online betting market
