The Santiago Court of Appeals has admitted a legal challenge from W&C N.V., the operator of Latamwin and WinChile. The challenge concerns the blocking of its online betting domains in Chile.
W&C filed the protection action on September 9 against the Superintendencia de Casinos de Juego (SCJ) and Subsecretaría de Telecomunicaciones (Subtel). The company argues that the two domains should not have been included in Chile’s blocking process.
Latamwin Challenges Domain Blocking
W&C argues that latamwinonline.com and winchile.com were not among the 12 websites specifically identified in the Supreme Court proceedings. These proceedings led to the original blocking order.
The operator also claims that its domains do not mirror or redirect to any of the websites named in that ruling.
W&C is challenging the authority of the SCJ and Subtel to extend the blocking process to its platforms. Furthermore, it has asked the court to restore access to both domains.
Court Requests Reports From Regulators
The Court of Appeals declared the action admissible on September 11. It also ordered the SCJ and Subtel to provide reports explaining the circumstances behind the blocking.
However, the court did not grant W&C’s request to suspend the measure while the case proceeds. As a result, the two domains remain blocked.
The decision to admit the action does not determine whether the blocking was lawful. The court will consider W&C’s arguments alongside the responses submitted by the two authorities.
Chile Expands DNS Blocking Process
The dispute follows the introduction of a continuing DNS-blocking process for unauthorised betting websites.
Under the system, the SCJ reviews additional domains submitted for blocking. Meanwhile, Subtel communicates approved blocking instructions to internet service providers.
In September, Subtel instructed six major ISPs to block 42 URLs, including domains associated with Latamwin and WinChile. This was part of a wider enforcement action against unauthorised betting platforms.
Case Could Clarify Blocking Authority
The central issue is whether Chile’s ongoing blocking mechanism can extend to operators and domains that were not specifically identified in the original Supreme Court proceedings.
The court’s eventual decision could provide further clarity on how authorities apply the DNS-blocking process. It may also clarify the legal basis for adding additional betting domains to enforcement measures.
For operators and suppliers active in Chile, the case could have implications for how future blocking orders are issued and challenged.
