Group of Online Gaming Platforms made a statement towards the ruling of the Supreme Court regarding online gaming regulation

Carlos Baeza, legal advisor to online betting platforms Betano, Betsson, Coolbet and Latamwin declares: In relation to the ruling of the Supreme Court, issued in the Income Protection Appeal No. 152.138-2022, which indicates that Mundo Pacifico S.A. “cannot transmit or promote games of chance” and orders the blocking of the websites indicated in the appeal, we find it necessary to point out:

1. We regret the drastic and sudden change of opinion of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court, which just one year ago, on August 31, 2022, determined with a unanimous ruling on an identical Appeal for Protection Presented in the Court of Appeals of Santiago (CS Role No. 60,055-2022), also against Internet service providers, that a Protection Remedy “is not the ideal means for this purpose,” because it is an exceptional constitutional action.

2. We do not share any of the arguments that the Third Chamber has used for this latest ruling, neither in constitutional, criminal nor civil matters:

to. Article 63 No. 19 of the Constitution establishes that the regulation of lotteries, racetracks and betting must be done only by law. This does not imply a prohibition, but rather a guarantee.
b. Articles 276 et seq. of the Penal Code, in force since 1874, do not include online betting as prohibited and sanctioned conduct.
c. Article 1466 of the Civil Code establishes a defect (illegal object) in the debt associated with a betting contract. This does not make the contract “illegal”, it only adds a cause for eventual nullity that must be judicially declared in each case.

3. We note that this ruling is one more in this matter, with several resolutions still pending in courts, which may or may not coincide with this new criterion expressed by the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court. It is important to affirm that public policies must be defined by the Executive Branch together with the Congress of Chile, and not in the judiciary. Therefore, this ruling should not alter the legislative process that we have supported from the beginning.

4. In the international context, it is also worth noting that there are no records that a similar ruling has existed in OECD countries. The legal systems of these countries seem to understand that the attempt to contain technological advance through judicial rulings is completely inconsequential. For this reason, the effective discussion has always been based in the legislative headquarters of said countries.

5. We maintain our firm support for the work carried out by the National Congress and led today by the Ministry of Finance and the Economy Commission of the Chamber of Deputies, who are making decisive progress in establishing modern regulation for the industry in Chile, which increases tax collection and that properly protects all users.