Chile delays online casino regulation as tax debate centers on 20% vs 25%

Chile’s lower house Finance Committee has extended discussion of the bill that would create a legal framework for online casinos and betting. For PSPs and operators, the delay matters because the real split is now between tax design, responsible gambling rules, and who will actually supervise the market.

1. The Comisión de Hacienda of the Cámara de Diputados decided to lengthen the review period for the draft law on online casinos and betting in Chile. The bill is meant to establish the sector’s regulatory framework, but the timetable has now slipped again.
2. The biggest point of friction is taxation. The executive branch is proposing a 20% tax on gross revenue, while some legislators want to raise it to 25% to match other markets in the region. For operators, that is not a small rounding error; it changes the economics of market entry and the room for payments friction.
3. Responsible gambling rules are also on the table. Specialists have pushed for mandatory deposit limits and time-on-site limits for users in the digital environment, which means compliance requirements could end up being baked into the product rather than left to operator discretion.
4. The committee asked the Ministry of Finance for a comparative report on regulatory models used in other countries in the region and in Europe. Colombia and Mexico were mentioned as licensing and tax-collection references, while Spain and the United Kingdom will also be reviewed.
5. Patricia Rubio, a member of Congress, warned: “No podemos aprobar una ley que después no tengamos capacidad de hacer cumplir.” Jorge Alessandri, the committee chair, said the Superintendencia de Casinos de Juego will be called in to assess whether it has the technical capacity to oversee the future digital market or whether a new regulator will have to be created.

The sector estimates the unregulated online betting market in Chile moves about US$800 million a year. If formalized, it could generate around US$150 million in tax revenue in the first year of implementation, which is exactly why the tax rate and supervisory setup are doing most of the heavy lifting in this debate.