On 25 May 2022 a WOM customer registered with SERNAC's 'No Molestar' platform, asking for advertising calls, SMS and WhatsApp messages to be blocked. Two days later WOM confirmed the block was in place. The promotional SMS kept arriving anyway, and on 9 June the customer reported the breach.
The case ran on Articles 23 and 28B of Law 19.496, Chile's consumer code: companies may not send advertising or promotional communications to consumers who have requested a block. The Santiago Court of Appeals, Fourteenth Chamber (role 2.006-2023), upheld a fine of 50 UTM — about 3.4 million pesos — confirmed in March 2026, holding the infringements proven by the messages sent between May and 9 June 2022.
The ruling is a lesson for every marketing operation that runs on lists: an opt-out confirmation is a commitment the systems must honor. The infringement is not the campaign — it is each message sent after the promise to stop.
Each SMS after the confirmed opt-out was a separate infringement, so the court upheld a 50 UTM fine (~CLP 3.4M) for messages sent over weeks.
The customer used SERNAC's 'No Molestar' platform and WOM confirmed the block — the promotional SMS kept arriving.
Article 28B bars advertising to consumers who requested a block; the messages post-dated the confirmation.
The appeals court upheld the 50 UTM fine, finding the infringements proven.
An opt-out is an order, not a preference: once the block request is confirmed, every message sent afterward is a separate infringement, and the courts price them.
The ruling is Chile's citation for enforcement of the 'No Molestar' regime. The duty is not strict liability in the other direction — in a related case the same court voided a 150 UTM fine against Telefónica when the infringement was not proven.
FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE