Main developments in competition law and policy 2025 - Chile

Significant competition law developments emerged in Chile during 2025. While this summary does not provide a detailed description of how Chile’s competition enforcement system operates (for that, please refer to the previous series), it is important to recall that the Chilean system involves the intervention of three authorities: 

• Fiscalía Nacional Económica (“FNE”): its main powers are investigating, filing complaints, assessing merger control and conducting market studies. 

• Tribunal de Defensa de la Libre Competencia (“Competition Tribunal” or “TDLC”): independent and specialised court that hears and rules on conflicts arising from anti-competitive conducts. The TDLC can also determine, within a non-contentious proceeding, whether a certain contract or act infringes competition law, with the power to impose remedies and further, it can issue general instructions that are mandatory and regulate a whole industry.

• Supreme Court: TDLC’s judgments can be challenged before the Supreme Court, which conducts a complete judicial review, both on the merits and on their legality.

1.        Antitrust Enforcement

During the annual public address, in June 2025, the National Economic Prosecutor stated that the enforcement priorities this year had been cartels, digital markets, interlocking directorates, and effective merger control. Finally, the Prosecutor referred to the legal power to require public or private entities to submit information within an investigation or market enquiry. Specifically, he highlighted that during the Higher Education Market Enquiry (infra) some universities had filed injunctions to deny submitting information required by the FNE, but the courts rejected their claims.

a.       Cartel agreements

Supreme Court. Helicopters I. In February, the Supreme Court upheld the TDLC judgment sanctioning two companies and their key executives for influencing bidding processes for helicopters used to fight wildfires. As indicated in the 2023 version, a key element is that one of the executives involved in the agreement was also held jointly and severally liable for the fine imposed on one of the defendant companies, where he worked as the main manager.

Supreme Court. Helicopters II. In February, the Supreme Court overturned the TDLC’s ruling that had dismissed the FNE’s complaint against two companies and two executives for their participation in a bid-rigging agreement concerning helicopters to fight wildfires. The TDLC had rejected the complaint based on the five-year statute of limitations. The Supreme Court imposed fines on both the companies and the individual executives, holding one of them jointly and severally liable for the fine imposed on one of the defendant companies where he acted as the main manager.

Complaint against king crab companies and executives. In September 2025, the FNE filed a complaint alleging a price-fixing cartel, which is still under review by the TDLC. The complaint was filed against several companies and their general managers who purchase King Crab from artisanal fishermen in the Magallanes y la Antártica Chilena Region of southern Chile. In particular, the FNE accused the defendants of fixing the purchase prices concerning King Crab from at least 2012 to 2021. The trial is still ongoing in the TDLC.

b.       Abuse of dominance

Telecom companies for excessive pricing. In August 2022, the companies Connectus Altera, Linksat, Voz Digital, and Habla IP, all short message service (“SMS”) licensees, filed a lawsuit against WOM, a Mobile Network Operator (“MNO”), for abusing its dominant position and for unfair competition. The plaintiffs alleged that WOM had abused its dominant position in the SMS termination market by unilaterally modifying the commercial conditions agreed upon for the service and charging excessive prices.

To determine whether WOM had effectively charged excessive prices to the plaintiffs, the TDLC conducted a three-stage analysis of behavioural and structural elements: (i) determining whether WOM held a dominant position; (ii) examining whether the prices charged by WOM were “undoubtedly excessive”; and (iii) evaluating whether possible justifications existed to rule out that charging an undoubtedly excessive price constituted an abuse of dominant position.

The TDLC partially upheld Connectus’s claim and determined that the defendant had abused its dominant position by charging excessive prices in the International A2P SMS termination market. Consequently, WOM was fined at ~US$1,3 MM and ordered to annul the invoices issued under the excessive rate. The defendants challenged the TDLC’s judgment before the Supreme Court and its decision is still pending. 

Submission of false information within a merger notification. In July 2022, the merger between CCA and Oxxo (buyers) and Inversiones SMU SpA, Supermercados Chile S.A., and Rendic Hermanos S.A. (sellers) had been approved subject to remedies. Consequently, the FNE decided to file a claim before the TDLC accusing CCA and Oxxo of (i) failing to provide information that they were supposed to submit alongside their notification, constituting for an infringement of “providing false information”, and (ii) non-compliance with the remedies under which the transaction was approved (an accusation that was object of a partial in trial settlement).

In its analysis, the TDLC focused on determining whether the omission of the missing information was equivalent to submitting false information. Given that neither the law nor the regulations define “false information,” the TDLC interpreted the concept according to its natural meaning: that which is contrary to the truth, erroneous, inaccurate, or induces a false representation of reality. Accordingly, it concluded that manipulated information as well as the omission of information in the notifier’s possession when such omission creates an appearance of completeness can be deemed false. The TDLC upheld the claim and imposed a fine of ~US$2,8 MM for the benefit of the public treasury, additionally ordering the payment of legal costs.

c.       Interlocking directorates

The TDLC upheld the first two complaints filed by the FNE regarding interlocking directorates against both individuals and the parent companies of holdings that offer financial services (e.g., banking, insurance, wealth and asset management, stockbrokerage). The defendants were: (i) Juan José Hurtado Vicuña, Consorcio Financiero S.A., and Larraín Vial SpA (Case No. C 437-21), and (ii) Hernán Buchi, Consorcio Financiero S.A., Banco de Chile S.A., and Falabella S.A. (Case No. 436-21). During the trial, the FNE reached a settlement with Hernán Buchi and Falabella S.A.

Since 2017, the Chilean Competition Act has prohibited interlocking directorates, which arise when a “relevant officer” or director of one firm simultaneously serves as an officer or director of another competing firm and a certain revenue threshold is met.

The TDLC set the standard for interlocking directorates, identifying the main elements: (i) it is an infringement assessed under the per se rule, so liability arises even in the absence of actual or potential anticompetitive harm; (ii) the TDLC construed the concept of “competitor firms” using the notion of a “single economic unit”. Thus, two legal entities (a parent company and its subsidiary) are a “single economic unit” if they share a common decision-making centre, which is a question of fact, and the parent company is able to or does actually exercise decisive influence over the subsidiary’s policy and direct its conduct, so the subsidiary doesn’t enjoy real autonomy in determining its course of action in the market.

In Case No. 437-21, the TDLC determined that both the individuals and the companies concerned were liable for interlocking directorates, imposing fines totalling ~US$3 MM, whereas in Case No. 436-21, the TDLC imposed fines totalling ~US$6 MM on both companies. These rulings were challenged before the Supreme Court, and its final decision is still pending.

On March 2, 2026, the Supreme Court overturned both of the TDLC’s decisions on interlocking directorates, acquitting the defendants. In short, the Supreme Court concludes that the facts do not fall under a direct interlocking hypothesis, an infringement analysed under the per se rule, and hence, that should be construed restrictively. In this regard, it questions the interpretation given by the TDLC on the defendants’ being competitors. Finally, it states that enterprises or corporate entities should not be sanctioned for direct interlocking, and that only individuals can act as defendants.

2.        Out of Court settlements

The FNE has continued stressing the use of out-of-court settlements to prevent and foster competition in the markets. This year, the FNE submitted three out-of-court settlements reached with several companies, showing the efficiency of this tool to avoid long trials. All of them were approved by the TDLC.

Out-of-court settlement between the FNE and Public Transport Lines. On December 2022, the FNE initiated investigation Case No. 2701-22, aimed at verifying the existence of certain anticompetitive practices in the shared taxi (taxis colectivos) passenger transport market, in the locality of Victoria, Araucanía Region.

During its investigation, the FNE found that the companies under investigation, which provided shared taxi services, entered into an agreement to increase the prices for their services, which was implemented between May 2022 and March 2024. The FNE proposed the adoption of measures by the transport lines through an out of court settlement, in order to safeguard free competition. Finally, on July 2025, the parties ratified the settlement, which was approved by the TDLC.

Out-of-court settlement between the FNE, Public Transport Lines and Municipality. Linked to the same shared taxi service, in March 2019, the FNE investigated several shared taxi lines and the Municipality of San Bernardo, Metropolitan Region, regarding a memorandum of understanding signed in 2009. Under this agreement, the lines, which were competitors, committed to refrain from competing in bidding processes and to apply only for their current services, while the Municipality pledged to prioritise them over potential new entrants. This agreement was allegedly applied during the 2010 bidding process and the 2018 establishment of the exclusion perimeter, affecting competition in the local shared taxi public transport market.

During the investigation, the FNE, the investigated companies and the Municipality reached an out-of-court settlement. The TDLC approved the settlement, finding that the measures undertaken by the parties were pertinent and sufficient to protect competition in the local shared taxi market. The Court emphasized that the settlement effectively terminates the memorandum of understanding signed in 2009 and establishes clear obligations to prevent future anticompetitive coordination.

3.        Non-contentious proceedings

Airlines slots in SCL-Lima and airport tax free shops. The TDLC resolved two consultations concerning tender processes on airport slots and airport tax-free shops (Rulings No.85/2025 and No. 87/2025). Following the jurisprudence, it confirmed that the tender conditions cannot be examined if they constitute a mere application of the applicable sectoral regulations, such that the JAC lacks discretion to act otherwise than as prescribed by the legal framework. However, the TDLC acknowledged that in these cases, the tender conditions could be analysed in another contentious procedure where non-mandatory recommendations could be made to amend the applicable regulation.

Regarding other issues where the sectoral authority has some discretion, the TDLC reviewed the tender conditions during the consultation process. In general, the TDLC concluded that the tender conditions didn’t infringe the competition law. It is worth noting that, within the consultation regarding airport tax-free shops, on the basis of an observation submitted by the FNE, the TDLC prohibited the authority conducting the tender process from revealing bidders’ identities before economic bids are submitted, to prevent coordination risks.

Payment system with cards. Transbank, a former monopoly in credit and debit cards operator in Chile, submitted to the approval of the TDLC its new tariff plan regarding the operation of card-based transactions (auto-regulation tariff plan). In Ruling No. 86/2025, the TDLC acknowledged that market conditions had changed since the original tariff plan was approved in 2006 and accepted the new plan with some changes. The TDLC also allowed Transbank to liberalise its tariffs, provided that the FNE establishes that it holds less than 50% market share in the operation of card-based transactions for at least six consecutive months. In January 2026, after the Supreme Court upheld this ruling, the FNE issued a resolution confirming that Transbank met these requirements and therefore, operation tariffs charged by Transbank are no longer subject to auto-regulation plans.

4.        Merger Control

Main statistics. As in previous years, the FNE Mergers Division has published its annual merger statistics. Throughout the year, the FNE concluded the assessment of 28 mergers, all during Phase 1. Overall, 27 of these operations were cleared unconditionally, while only one merger was approved subject to behavioural remedies.

5.        Procedural law

Although there were no modifications to the procedural rules governing competition proceedings, it is worth noting the Constitutional Court (“TC”) ruling in August 2025 regarding the application of civil procedure rules in the contentious proceedings carried out before the TDLC.

The plaintiffs before the TC argued that the application of civil rules in the contentious proceedings before the TDLC would infringe constitutional guarantees, such as the defendant's right to remain silent, the right not to testify under oath, and the privilege against self-incrimination, all of which are considered integral parts of due process.

All the actions were rejected by the TC, reaffirming the application of civil confession rules (even in collusion cases which, since 2016, can lead to criminal proceedings). Given the TC rulings, in the Cash-in-Transit collusion case before the TDLC, the court decided to enforce the legal warnings provided by civil law. This implies that if the legal representatives of the defendants are summoned by the plaintiff and do not appear in court, the TDLC can consider them as having confessed.

6.        Market enquiries by the FNE

Market enquiry on higher education. In October 2025, the FNE published the preliminary version of a market enquiry on higher education (tertiary education). The enquiry assesses the competitive evolution of the higher education market at the undergraduate programme level from 2007 to 2023. The dynamics of competition among higher education institutions at this level were examined, considering both the university subsystem and the technical-professional (“TP”) subsystem.

Firstly, the enquiry provides findings on the market’s competitive evolution. For instance, the FNE found that the quality metrics analysed (e.g. employability, salary premiums, duration of degrees) do not show a clear progression during the studied period, and there is also a significant degree of heterogeneity both between and within each subsystem -professional and technical. Secondly, the enquiry pinpoints potential barriers to competition (e.g. regulatory barriers unjustifiably hinder competition in the sector, asymmetry of information). Finally, the enquiry makes recommendations about possible courses of action to improve its competitive dynamics. 

The final version of this market enquiry was published in January 2026. 

To be expected soon. The FNE is currently conducting a market study on e-commerce in Chile, and the preliminary conclusions are expected to be published in April 2026.