The Supreme Court has overturned a ruling by the Santiago Court of Appeals that had deemed the order to block online gambling sites as fulfilled, effectively allowing platforms to continue operating via 'mirror' addresses.
The high court determined that the lower court's decision was erroneous in considering the blocking measure implemented, as in practice, telecommunications companies were only restricting access to the primary URL.
The legal dispute involves telecom providers Claro, Entra, GTD, Movistar, WOM, and VTR. These providers had argued before the Court of Appeals that it was technically impossible to block alternative addresses without disrupting other internet services.
Ending impunity for mirror sites
Following the initial block, gambling platforms began operating using different URLs. In response, the Lotería de Concepción and Polla Chilena de Beneficencia requested that the ban be extended to these mirror sites as well.
However, the Court of Appeals had upheld the telecommunications companies' position, allowing the block to be limited only to the main link. For end users, this distinction was effectively meaningless, as the mirror sites continued to function without interruption.
The Supreme Court harshly criticized this approach. The high court noted that the Court of Appeals' decision was flawed because it "omits in its analysis that the obligation of the respondents arises from a final judicial ruling that carries the effect ofres judicata."
According to the ruling, by failing to block alternative addresses, an activity that lacks proper legal and administrative authorization is being permitted. The Supreme Court specified that the lower court's resolution constitutes a "procedural error in deeming the order issued in a final ruling to be fulfilled, under circumstances where [...] it is evident that this is not the case."
The case will now return to the Court of Appeals. The justices of that court must now take the necessary steps to ensure the effective enforcement of the ruling issued last September.
The decision follows a complaint filed against the justices of the Court of Appeals regarding the March 2026 resolution. The original protective action was filed by Gonzalo Cisternas Sobarzo, acting on behalf of the Lotería de Concepción.
