Carlos Baeza: “Online Betting Is Not Outlawed in Chile”

Chile.– October 21, 2025 – www.zonadeazar.com The lawyer representing five of the largest online betting companies operating in Chile states that there are no laws supporting the Supreme Court’s decision, which upheld the protection appeal filed by Lotería, forcing internet providers to block the websites of those platforms.

Moreover, he announced that they will change their URLs to continue operating. He also believes it is unlikely that a law to regulate them will be passed, since the Executive does not want to regulate but to ban them: “The worst position we’ve ever been in is with this government,” he asserts.

Lawyer Carlos Baeza Guíñez, a graduate of Universidad Gabriela Mistral with a master’s degree from the University of Dundee, Scotland, is not only the president of the Chilean Association of Online Betting Platforms and legal representative of the five online betting houses operating in Chile—Betano, Betsson, Betwarrior, Coolbet and Latamwin—but also the only public face of this business in the country. These platforms have operational bases abroad, mainly in Malta and Curaçao, and none have offices or legal domicile in Chile.

Baeza began representing these companies several years ago with the main goal of achieving regulation for online gaming sites. At the same time, he has had to defend them before Congress, courts, and every authority that has opposed them.

One particular case, however, directly affected his clients but did not include him. On September 30, the Supreme Court upheld a protection appeal filed by Lotería de Concepción against internet providers Movistar, Entel, ClaroVTR, GTD, and Wom. The court ordered these operators to block access to online betting platforms, ruling that they “operate illegally” in Chile, as only entities authorized by law—casinos, racetracks, Polla and Lotería—may legally conduct sports betting.

As the ruling affects the operations of the five betting sites, Baeza publicly challenged the court’s reasoning.

“The reasons behind this ruling are not legal; they may be personal, religious, or ethical—I have no idea. The Supreme Court’s conclusion that online betting is outlawed has no legal basis,” he declares, citing Article 63 No. 19 of the Constitution, Articles 277 and 278 of the Penal Code, and Article 1,466 of the Civil Code—the same references used by the Court to justify its ruling.

–Beyond your statements, the Supreme Court ruled they are illegal.
“We have always maintained that online betting in Chile is a non-prohibited and unregulated activity, therefore neither illegal nor illicit. Chilean law has only ever prohibited unauthorized land-based gambling—clandestine casinos established under the 1875 Penal Code. It is inconceivable that lawmakers 150 years ago contemplated online betting. No Chilean law bans online betting or games of chance in general.”

–The Court even referenced the Constitution.
“In the ongoing legislative process, we’ve presented constitutional, civil, and criminal legal opinions. Constitutional scholars Arturo Fermandois, Francisco Zúñiga, and Javier Couso all concluded unequivocally that the Constitution contains no prohibitive clause and that online betting is not outlawed.”

–But those opinions were commissioned by you.
“Of course—but neither the Government, Polla, nor Lotería have presented any legal report stating otherwise. Yes, they are paid opinions, but they come from respected professionals whose views reflect genuine expertise.”

–The ruling is final and must be enforced.
“It resolves a dispute between parties. It’s binding only on them—it does not set precedent or establish general rules. Telecom companies must comply and block the 12 URLs listed, but no one else is bound by that decision.”

Baeza added that people hold a “romantic” view of the Supreme Court, as if it were infallible. Other constitutional authorities—like the Public Prosecutor’s Office, which has the legal monopoly over criminal prosecution policy—after three years of investigation and a 2,000-page case file, decided not to pursue charges against online betting platforms.

–So what will the betting sites do?
“We are not parties to the case, so we are not required to comply. As in 2023, when a similar ruling ordered the blocking of 23 sites, the companies may change their URLs and continue operating.”

–Won’t that be contempt of court?
“No, because formally we are not part of that case. And it would be unreasonable for an entire global industry with major fiscal potential to vanish overnight while seeking regulation.”

–Will you take the case to the Constitutional Court?
“We prefer to pursue regulation, not litigation.”

–Can the bill in Congress be passed during this administration?
“Impossible. It has 100 articles, amends five laws, and received 490 amendments awaiting review by the Economy and Finance Committees. It’s unfeasible under this government.”

–Have you met any presidential candidates?
“Yes, with Johannes Kaiser, to explain the industry’s situation.”

–Could a future government pass the bill, given that leading candidate José Antonio Kast is conservative?
“We don’t know his position. But any new administration should bring a more rational view. As in all developed countries, this should be a regulated activity, guided by a technical, fiscal perspective.”

–Estimated fiscal impact:
According to Yield Sec, Chile’s online betting market is worth US$ 3 billion.

  • With a 37.6% tax rateUS$ 780 million/year.

  • With a 22% tax rate (global average) → US$ 1.15 billion/year.

He explained the “channelization” effect: lower taxes lead to higher migration from the unregulated to the regulated market, increasing tax revenue.


🇨🇱 Key Takeaways

  • Online betting is not prohibited, only unregulated.

  • Supreme Court ruling lacks legal foundation.

  • Baeza represents Betano, Betsson, Betwarrior, Coolbet, Latamwin.

  • Court order affects only ISPs, not the betting companies.

  • They will change URLs and continue operating.

  • Regulation bill stalled: 100 articles, 490 amendments.

  • Government seeks prohibition, not regulation.

  • Market worth US$ 3 billion; tax potential US$ 780M–1.15B/year.

  • “Lower taxes = higher revenue.”

🔗 Edited by: @_fonta www.zonadeazar.com

Compartir: