Chilean casinos attack the online bill from two fronts
Two voices from the same side of the Chilean market spoke out on the online betting bill in less than twenty-four hours, doing so from opposite angles that lead to the very same objection. The Asociación Chilena de Casinos de Juego pointed to tax asymmetries and market entry conditions; the Federación Nacional de Sindicatos de Casinos de Juego y Hoteles highlighted the jobs that legislative delays are failing to create.
Cecilia Valdés, president of the ACCJ, opened by acknowledging that the Executive addressed some of the concerns raised during discussions, particularly not approaching the bill solely from a revenue-raising perspective. She also commended the text for incorporating effective supervision of the activity, anti-money laundering measures, and the protection of minors and vulnerable users. The objection came later, positioned on two fronts: she is concerned that disparities between online platforms and licensed casinos remain in place, both in terms of taxation and market entry conditions.
That second part is worth reading against the legislative text itself, because there the asymmetry is verifiable rather than a mere impression. The bill requires platforms to obtain a five-year license with an annual fee of 1,000 UTM—totaling 5,000 UTM for the entire period—and levies a 19 percent VAT calculated on the monthly difference between wagers received and prizes paid out, plus an additional tax at a 3 percent rate. The Undersecretary of Finance confirmed this week before the Senate Economy Committee that this 3 percent does not allow VAT deductions or monthly provisional payments, resulting in an effective tax burden of 22 percent.
The most sensitive point lies in the transitional regime. Having operated in the country without a license locks a company out for twelve months, unless it registers under the transitional regime: in that case, the cooling-off period is waived in exchange for a 3,000 UTM authorization fee and settling outstanding Digital VAT obligations. Furthermore, operators must declare and pay the corresponding tax for the preceding 36 months, and this payment fully extinguishes by operation of law any civil, criminal, or administrative liability arising from tax non-compliance.
In numbers, an operator entering through the transitional route pays 3,000 UTM—the equivalent of three years of the annual licensing fee—and effectively wipes the slate clean regarding liability for having operated outside the law. A casino that has always complied has nothing to take advantage of, as it has nothing to regularize, and faces upcoming tender processes without any equivalent benefit. The asymmetry Valdés describes in market entry is not merely an unequal fee structure: it is that the bill creates a regularization gateway that exclusively benefits those who operated unlawfully.
For Valdés, licensed casinos are undergoing a situation she described as "critical," requiring urgent measures to restore their competitiveness and legal certainty ahead of upcoming tenders, with the added factor that the bill itself may still change during legislative debate. She concluded by highlighting the industry's local footprint: revenue for municipalities and regional governments, tourism, investment, and employment, meaning its decline directly impacts the municipalities where gaming venues operate.
The union's stance came from a different angle. Diego Valerio Ávalos, president of FENASICAJH, published an op-ed in BioBioChile on October 29 titled "Regulation of online betting, the employment opportunity that the Government let slip away," in which he objected to the debate being reduced merely to tax collection and oversight. His contrast highlighted that casinos operate within a strict legal framework while online platforms exploit a "multi-million dollar market outside the law," directly linking this to staff reductions at retail gaming venues, particularly outside the capital.
His central argument is that requiring a formal local presence within the country would enable the creation of "thousands of formal jobs," and that the Government had the opportunity to introduce amendments to that effect but failed to seize it. Every day of delay, he argued, allows sites to continue operating without the obligations of a formal market. He concluded by drawing a distinction between regulation and promotion: regulating in a timely manner, he argued, does not promote gambling but rather serves to "set the house in order" and turn what already exists into registered employment.
The convergence is the interesting part. The union demands that the law require platforms to establish themselves in the country with local infrastructure, which would raise their operational costs, while the association demands that the law not allow them entry under more favorable tax conditions than land-based casinos. They are the same claim expressed in two different currencies, and in both cases, the debate is not whether the online market should be regulated, but under what terms relative to incumbent operators already paying taxes.
The bill regulating online betting in Chile also authorizes land-based venues to offer platform-based betting within their premises, provided there is an agreement with a licensed and certified platform operating company. The ACCJ represents operators of municipal casinos and those under Law 19,995 supervised by the Superintendencia de Casinos de Juego, while FENASICAJH brings together casino and hotel worker unions across the country. The Executive's bill is currently being reviewed by the Senate Economy Committee.
Tags: Chile, online betting, ACCJ, FENASICAJH