The Santiago Court of Appeals has admitted for consideration a protection action brought by W&C N.V., operator of Latamwin and WinChile, over the blocking of its online betting platforms in Chile.
W&C N.V. filed the action on 9 September against the Superintendencia de Casinos de Juego (SCJ) and Subsecretaría de Telecomunicaciones (Subtel). The company argues that its domains should not have been included in the blocking process because neither platform was among the 12 websites specifically identified in the Supreme Court proceedings that led to the original blocking order.
It also argues that the sites are not mirrors of, or redirects to, any of the domains named in that judgment. W&C is challenging the authority of the SCJ and Subtel to apply the blocking process to its platforms and has requested that access to latamwinonline.com and winchile.com be restored.
The Court of Appeals declared the action admissible on 11 September and ordered the SCJ and Subtel to submit reports explaining the circumstances surrounding the blocking. However, it did not immediately grant W&C’s request for an order suspending the measure, meaning the two domains remain blocked while the case proceeds.
The dispute follows the establishment of a continuing DNS-blocking process for unauthorised betting sites, developed to implement the court rulings concerning illegal online gambling. Under that process, the SCJ reviews additional domains submitted for inclusion and Subtel communicates the resulting blocking instructions to internet service providers.
In September, Subtel ordered six major ISPs to block 42 URLs, including domains linked to Latamwin and WinChile, in what was described as a wider order against unauthorised betting sites.
The case now turns on whether that implementation process can extend to operators and domains that were not specifically identified in the original Supreme Court proceedings. The court’s decision to admit W&C N.V.’s action does not determine the legality of the blocking; it will first consider the operator’s arguments and the responses filed by the SCJ and Subtel.