Chilean deputy proposes blocking payments instead of websites
A Chilean deputy has proposed shifting away from blocking online betting sites to blocking payments instead. Alejandro Riquelme raised the proposal during a session of the Economy Commission, describing the domain blocking implemented by the Subsecretaría de Telecomunicaciones as "completely ineffective."
His reasoning for dismissing the current method is technical, summarizing it as: "I block one, they replicate again; I block another, they replicate again." His argument points to mirror sites, as replicating a webpage under another domain extension is cheap and fast, meaning the enforcement hits the web address but fails to reach the operator behind it.
The alternative he proposed shifts the focus from access to payment processing. In his view, the target should be bank transfers and international credit card transactions flowing to these companies: "What needs to be blocked is the payment." Operationally, he called on the Superintendencia de Casinos de Juego to coordinate with banks and financial institutions to prevent transactions with companies currently operating illegal online services in the country.
The deputy himself acknowledged the limitation of his proposal unprompted—a noteworthy point, as it addresses the obvious objection. He recognized that operators might later seek alternative mechanisms, but argued that this approach at least cuts off a crucial lifeline. Unlike domain blocking, the difference comes down to the cost for the offender: switching domains is cheap, whereas building a new payment processing channel requires financial intermediaries willing to take the risk.
The second part of his intervention focused on the legal framework and is just as relevant as the first. Riquelme stressed that online betting is not simply an unregulated activity, but an illegal one, backing this claim with the Supreme Court ruling that in September 2025 ordered the blocking of sites operating without authorization, based on the principle that gambling is unlawful unless expressly authorized by law.
From there, he drew the institutional consequence. He maintained that Chile is governed by the rule of law and that this ruling holds authority until Congress enacts legislation that permits or regulates the activity, concluding that discussions on potential legalization must take place in Congress without being confused with the current legal status. Until a law is approved, he insisted, it remains an illegal activity.
This distinction brings clarity to a debate that is often conflated, as both developments are moving forward simultaneously in Chile. A week ago, the Executive branch submitted a bill to the Senate creating five-year licenses for online platforms with an annual fee of 1,000 UTM, a 19 percent VAT on margin, and an additional 3 percent tax, alongside a total ban on advertising. Until this bill or another is approved, the applicable framework remains the one established by the Court.
Riquelme's proposal also bears a noteworthy resemblance to discussions underway across the region. In the province of Buenos Aires, a bill was introduced last week that places control on virtual wallets, requiring user training prior to transferring funds to a betting platform. These are two different approaches rooted in the same intuition: the most effective leverage point against an offshore operator is the payment rail, not the domain.
The Superintendencia de Casinos de Juego is the regulatory body overseeing authorized casinos in Chile under Law 19.995, currently lacking jurisdiction over online betting platforms, which operate without a licensing framework. The Subsecretaría de Telecomunicaciones is the authority that instructs internet service providers to execute court-ordered website blocks.
Tags: Chile, online betting, payment blocking, Supreme Court