CHILE Law and Practice Contributed by: Claudio Lizana, Daniela León, Tomás Appelgren and María Jesús Gaete, Estudio Lizana
In May 2025, after lengthy litigation, the Supreme Court upheld the TDLC’s ruling, sanctioning CDF for abuse of dominance in the wholesale market for sports broadcasting signals, and maintaining the historic fine of UTA32,000 (over USD28 million) ‒ the highest ever imposed in Chile for a violation of competition law. The ruling confirms that CDF abused its dominant position in the Chilean professional football broad - casting market by engaging in a series of contractual practices that unjustifiably restricted competition. In particular, the following practices were sanctioned: • tying of basic and premium signals; • imposition of a minimum number of subscribers; • restrictions on promotions offered by cable opera - tors; and • imposition of minimum resale prices. These conditions affected the commercial freedom of pay-TV operators and ultimately harmed consumers. In a significant decision on the statute of limitations, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the relevant date for determining when the accused conduct occurs is the actual implementation of the conduct, not the date when the contract that gave rise to it was signed. Therefore, in the case of ongoing conduct, where the effects extend over time, the statute of limitations does not begin to run while the conduct continues ‒ in this case, for as long as the application of the contested clauses remains in effect. This historic precedent confirms that abuses of domi - nant position can be extremely serious and, therefore, deserving of high and exemplary fines. Excessive Pricing: CONNECTUS SPA and Others v WOM On 12 June 2025, the TDLC issued a highly significant ruling in the field of antitrust law, following litigation between private parties. The ruling found the compa - ny WOM S.A. (a telecommunications company) guilty of abusing its dominant position by charging exces - sive prices, fining the company UTA1,312, equivalent to approximately USD1.2 million (the Unidad Tributaria Anual (UTA) is a unit of account used in Chile).
The plaintiffs in this case alleged the following two groups of facts. • Increase in A2P SMS tariff: WOM increased the tariff 67-fold for messages it classified as inter - national. This was alleged to constitute excessive pricing, refusal to deal, margin squeeze, and unfair competition. • Delay in enabling short codes: the plaintiff com - panies accused WOM of refusal to deal, arbitrary discrimination, and unfair competition. The TDLC confirmed the existence of excessive pric - ing after verifying that all stages of the relevant analy - sis were satisfied. • In the first stage, it was determined that WOM held a dominant position at the time of the events, acting as the sole provider in the A2P SMS termi - nation market within its own network, with insur- mountable and permanent entry barriers. • In the second stage, the court concluded that the prices charged were clearly excessive, based on various parameters and established facts. • Finally, in the third stage, the TDLC rejected WOM’s justifications for its conduct. The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ other accusations. This ruling sets a significant precedent in cases of abuse of dominant position, as it is one of the few instances in Chile where the TDLC has thoroughly addressed the conduct of excessive pricing and its legal requirements. Both the defendant WOM and the plaintiffs have filed appeals with the Supreme Court, which are currently pending. Compensation for Damages: The Controversial Case of Papelera Cerrillos v SCA/CMPC Papelera Cerrillos (Cerrillos) filed a claim for damages against CMPC Tissue (CMPC) and SCA Chile (SCA) following the previous conviction of the latter com - panies for collusion. Cerrillos alleged that its financial crisis, which began in 1999 and ended in bankruptcy, was a direct result of the collusive agreement between the defendants that lasted from 2000 to 2011. It
32 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook