Colombia Debates Digital Identity Rules to Tighten Online Betting Controls

Colombia is debating a bill that would add digital identity verification, deposit and loss limits, and stronger player-protection controls for online betting platforms. For licensed PSPs and operators, the real issue is not the headline concept of “responsible gaming” but how far the state pushes verification, limits, and enforcement while illegal sites keep changing addresses.

1. Senator Gustavo Moreno is promoting a bill aimed at stricter controls for digital platforms and stronger user-protection tools in Colombia’s online gambling market. He said that between January and March 2025, betting reached about 4.6 trillion Colombian pesos, with around 8 million active accounts.
2. One of the core proposals is digital identity verification designed to stop minors from accessing betting platforms through third-party accounts. The draft also includes daily and monthly limits on user deposits and losses, which would affect both player onboarding and transaction monitoring on regulated platforms.
3. Moreno said that about 67% of bettors in Colombia are aged 18 to 29, and that around 245,000 people have requested self-exclusion because of gambling addiction issues. Those numbers are likely to keep the discussion focused on controls at the account and payment layer rather than on the betting products themselves.
4. Evert Montero, president of Fecoljuegos, said legal platforms in Colombia already apply controls such as identity verification with the national ID card and self-exclusion mechanisms. His argument is that the main challenge is not the legal market, but the inability to control illegal gambling.
5. Montero also questioned how effective site blocking is, saying some illegal platforms can return quickly under new web addresses. His warning was direct: too much regulation can create friction for authorized operators and indirectly help players outside the system.

For high-risk payment teams, the Colombian debate is a familiar one: tighter KYC, account-level controls, and more pressure on transaction rules on one side, and an illegal market that can be harder to pin down than the regulated one on the other.