Beyond Brazil: Peru, Argentina, Chile and the Next Wave of Regulated Markets

Three Different Routes to Regulation

Peru's online framework entered operation in February 2024, following earlier national regulation in Colombia. Argentina follows a decentralised model, while Chile's parliamentary process concerns a framework that had not yet become an operating licensing market at this article's publication.

These differences affect what “market entry” means: applying under a functioning national system, navigating separate subnational permissions, or planning for legislation that may still change.

Peru: From Licensing to Supervision

Law 31557, enacted in 2022 and amended by Law 31806 in 2023, established Peru's remote-gaming and remote-sports-betting framework. MINCETUR reported 145 applications for authorisation during the first 30 days after the framework entered operation in February 2024. An application is not the same as an approved operator or platform.

The operator tax is 12 percent of a defined monthly tax base. SUNAT describes that base as net gaming income after prizes and refunds, with a statutory maintenance deduction of 2 percent of that net income. A separate selective consumption tax also applies; the 12 percent figure is therefore not a complete statement of every gambling-related charge.

MINCETUR's December 2025 release reported PEN 419.5 million in tax receipts for January–November 2025 across casinos, slot machines, remote gaming and remote sports betting. This was not full-year online-only revenue, nor was it GGR.

Within that total, the ministry reported PEN 91.4 million from the remote-gaming tax and PEN 117.4 million from remote sports betting — approximately PEN 208.8 million combined. The distinction matters when comparing the online sector with other countries.

In a separate 2025 statement, MINCETUR reported a 40 percent reduction in illegal supply on digital platforms and applications. That is the ministry's enforcement claim, not an independently validated channelisation rate or proof that unlicensed player spending fell by 40 percent.

For operators, Peru's next challenge is the practical operation of the framework: supervision, technical compliance and the ability to distinguish authorised services from unlicensed competitors. Tax receipts and application counts provide useful evidence, but neither by itself establishes the quality of player protection or the size of the remaining illegal market.

Argentina: Regulated but Decentralised

Argentina's gambling permissions are jurisdiction-specific. The relevant map comprises 23 provinces and the autonomous City of Buenos Aires: 24 jurisdictions, not 23 interchangeable national licences.

A licence in one jurisdiction does not automatically authorise an operator throughout the country. Market entry requires checking the local regulator, permitted products, territorial controls and tax requirements for each proposed operation. Buenos Aires Province and the City of Buenos Aires are separate jurisdictions and should not be conflated.

Federal rules can nevertheless affect operators across that landscape. Resolution 446/2025 introduced national advertising requirements, including the warning about compulsive gambling and the “+18” marking, with rules on visibility and presentation. The official consumer-protection explanation identifies 3 December 2025 as its effective date.

ARCA's General Resolution 5791/2025 amended administration of the federal indirect tax on online bets, including the operator register and the timing of applicable collection rates. This was a tax-administration measure, not a federal gambling licence.

The commercial implication is that a regional plan needs to distinguish local gambling authorisation from federal tax and advertising obligations. A simple country-level “regulated” label conceals those separate layers.

Chile: A Bill Moving Through the Senate

Chile's Senate approved the online-betting bill in general terms in August 2025 by 27 votes to 3, with 5 abstentions, and referred it for detailed consideration by the joint Economy and Finance Committees. Approval in general was a legislative step, not the launch of a licensed online market.

The proposal, Bill 14.838-03, seeks to establish a new framework for online betting. The Senate's August 2025 summary described a proposed authorisation system, requirements for Chilean operating companies and beneficial-ownership information, technical and responsible-gambling certification, protection of minors and measures against illegal gambling.

Those provisions were proposals subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Operators could not assume that every proposed tax, product rule or transition arrangement would survive unchanged into a final law.

Tax design was among the issues discussed by the Senate. But combining several headline percentages without checking their respective bases does not produce a reliable effective tax rate. Likewise, a commercial estimate of unlicensed market size should not be treated as official observed GGR without a transparent method.

The strategic question is therefore twofold: whether a legal framework is adopted, and whether its eventual design can support credible supervision, player protection and a competitive authorised channel.

Lessons from the Region

The three markets in this final article offer different lessons. Peru shows the transition from a national law to licensing and tax collection. Argentina shows how local gambling regulation can coexist with federal tax and advertising rules. Chile shows why a bill's parliamentary progress must be distinguished from an operational regime.

The earlier parts of this series add two further cautions. A tax percentage is meaningful only alongside its base, effective date and legal status. An enforcement count is meaningful only alongside an explanation of what was counted; it is not automatically a measure of channelisation.

Market entry requirements also vary. Peru's framework can cover foreign legal entities, so local incorporation is not a universal requirement across every country discussed in this series. Operators need to check the actual route available in each jurisdiction.

Industry Implications

Regional forecasts can help frame a commercial opportunity, but they cannot replace jurisdiction-specific evidence. Tax receipts, GGR, wagers and deposits measure different things, and licensing applications do not establish the number of active operators.

For operators and investors, a useful comparison combines the legal route to market with defined financial data and the regulator's implementation record. For policymakers, the test extends beyond issuing licences: whether oversight protects players and whether activity can be measured inside and outside the authorised channel.

Latin America offers no single licensing template. The practical advantage lies in understanding those differences before committing capital.