Chile’s Supreme Court orders telecoms to block mirror gambling sites in landmark enforcement escalation

Chile’s Supreme Court has toughened its stance against unauthorised online betting by ruling that telecom operators cannot treat blocking orders as fulfilled while mirror domains remain accessible, raising the pressure on internet providers to deliver effective enforcement rather than partial compliance.

Chile’s highest court has reversed a Santiago Court of Appeals resolution that had considered the blocking of illegal gambling sites already fulfilled, despite the continued availability of those platforms through alternative URLs and mirror domains. The dispute stems from the earlier protection action brought by Lotería de Concepción against Claro, Entel, GTD, Movistar, WOM and VTR, which had already been ordered in September 2025 to block unauthorised online betting websites.

The practical issue was simple but important. After the initial blocking measures were introduced, the betting platforms reportedly continued operating by changing their web addresses, prompting Lotería de Concepción and Polla Chilena de Beneficencia to ask the courts to extend enforcement to so-called mirror sites. Telecom companies argued that going further could exceed their technical capacity or risk affecting other services, and that position had initially found support in the Court of Appeals.

The Supreme Court has now taken a much harder line. According to the ruling as described by Chilean media, the court said the Court of Appeals itself had effectively admitted on 18 March 2026 that the original order had not been properly complied with, yet still closed the case. It therefore set aside that resolution and sent the matter back so that non-disqualified appellate judges can adopt measures aimed at obtaining full compliance with the original judgment.

That makes this decision especially significant for the market. The September 2025 Supreme Court ruling had already held that internet providers were acting illegally and arbitrarily by refusing to block unauthorised betting sites, stating that only legally authorised entities may carry out such activity in Chile. The new decision goes a step further by making clear that blocking only the main domain is not enough if users can still reach the same gambling service through mirror addresses.

For Chile’s gambling industry, the judgment is important less because it creates a brand-new doctrine than because it sharpens the enforcement standard. The court is effectively signalling that compliance will be judged by outcome, not by minimal technical action. If that interpretation continues to hold, telecom providers may face a much more active obligation to pursue alternative access routes to illegal operators, at a time when Chile still lacks a fully settled online gambling framework in legislation.