CHILE Law and Practice Contributed by: Claudio Lizana, Daniela León, Tomás Appelgren and María Jesús Gaete, Estudio Lizana
the plaintiff can only claim compensation for the dam - ages actually and directly suffered by them. As regards the burden of proof, in Chile there is no presumption of damage resulting from cartels or other anti-competitive conduct, so it is always the plaintiff who must prove the existence of the damage and the causal link between the anti-competitive agreement previously sanctioned by the TDLC and such dam - age (usually price surcharges). On the other hand (and assuming that the plaintiff has provided sufficient evi - dence of the damage and causal link), if the defend - ant raises the pass-on defence, in theory, they should provide evidence to substantiate it. This is because the defendant carries the burden of proof regarding any facts that modify or extinguish the plaintiff’s right to compensation. Consequently, to establish a pass- on defence, the accused cartelist should demonstrate that the plaintiff did not pay any price surcharges as a result of the cartel activity because such plaintiff passed on such surcharges to their own customers. However, there is still no TDLC case law on this defence, for only since the amendment introduced to DL 211 in 2016, the TDLC is competent to hear claims for compensation for damages caused by anticom - petitive conduct, so all the above criteria remain to be confirmed. 3. Limitation Periods and the Duration of Litigation 3.1 Statute of Limitations Limitation Periods DL 211 establishes a three-year statute of limitations from the date of the anti-competitive conduct on which the actions are based. This limitation period is interrupted by any lawsuit filed by the FNE or a private party with the TDLC, legally served on the defend - ant. In the case of cartels, the statute of limitations is extended to five years counting from the date on which the effects of the cartel ceased. For subsequent damage claims (follow-on actions) before the TDLC, there is a four-year statute of limita - tions, commencing from the date of the final TDLC or Supreme Court decision, as applicable, condemning
the accused party for the respective anti-competitive conduct. 3.2 Typical Length of Private Antitrust Litigation The duration of antitrust litigation varies from case to case, but according to the TDLC’s 2025 statistics, the average length of contentious antitrust proceed - ings was 1,054 days during the period May 2024-April 2025. In the event of a subsequent claim for damages, the duration can be extended by an additional three-year period or more. Currently, there are only two com - pleted follow-on action cases before the TDLC: • Papelera Cerrillos v SCA/CMP , which lasted four years and seven months in total, until the Supreme Court’s final ruling; and • Conadecus and others v Agrosuper and others , which ended with a settlement after two years of litigation. Additionally, there are cases of partial settlement (eg, Agrecu v Cencosud and others ), where the litigation continues between the parties that did not reach an agreement. Article 51 of the Consumer Protection Law permits the filing of class or collective actions for damages before the TDLC in accordance with the provisions of Article 30 of DL 211, which requires a prior decision by the TDLC or the Supreme Court (in the event of an appeal) that finds one or more parties liable for engaging in anti-competitive conduct. According to the same provision of the Consumer Pro - tection Act, class actions may only be initiated by one of the following entities or groups. • The National Consumer Service ( Servicio Nacional del Consumidor , SERNAC): SERNAC is empow - ered to protect and advocate for consumer rights, 4. Class and Collective Actions 4.1 Statutory Basis Class Actions for Damages
36 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook