Chile has not signed the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Use of Electronic Communications in International Contracts.

Chile has not adopted national legislation based on or influenced by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law on Electronic Commerce.

According to the App Transportation Companies Act (EAT), which regulates paid passenger transportation services offered through applications, any company wishing to provide passenger transportation services through applications must be registered in the Registry of App Transportation Companies supervised by the Ministry of Transport and Telecommunications and be domiciled in Chile (Art. 4).
According to Art. 1 of the law, an application transport company covers any legal person that provides or makes available to persons a digital platform service, computer system or technology of any kind, which allows a passenger to contact the owner, manager or driver of a small passenger transport vehicle, to be transported from a given origin to a given destination, upon payment of a fee for the service received.

Chile has made binding commitments to data flows in several preferential trade agreements. According to Art. 13.11 of the First Amending Protocol (which amends the Additional Protocol to the Framework Agreement of the Pacific Alliance), the four parties (Chile, Colombia, Peru, and Mexico) commit to allowing cross-border information transfers through electronic means, including also the transfer of personal data for business activities. Moreover, in Art. 13.11.bis the parties commit to banning forced localisation of computer facilities in their national territories. Other binding commitments on data flows can be found in the Digital Economy Partnership Agreement (DEPA) together with Singapore and New Zealand, Art. 10.12 of the Chile - Brazil Bilateral Trade Agreement, Art.8.10 of the Trade Agreement between the Republic of Chile and the Oriental Republic of Uruguay, and Art.11.6 of the Trade Agreement between the Argentine Republic and the Republic of Chile, and Art. 14.11.2 of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP).

A comprehensive framework for data protection is in force under Act No. 19,628 Private Life Protection Act.

According to Art. 222 of the Criminal Procedure Code, telecommunication and internet service providers must store records documenting some users' data, including a list of the users' IP addresses, and register their IP numbers for at least one year.

Chile has a safe harbour regime in place for intermediaries for copyright infringements. According to Art. 85 L of Act No. 17,336, the intermediary has an 'effective knowledge' and is therefore liable only if it has been notified by a court order but has not properly executed the order.

A basic legal framework on intermediary liability beyond copyright infringement is absent in Chile's law and jurisprudence. The scope of the safe harbour regime in place under Act No. 17,336 only applies to intellectual property rights.

According to Art. 8 of Resolution No. 1,463 of 2016, foreigners travelling to Chile who wish to use their phone or other mobile device with a local SIM card must register the device in the system for it to continue operating in Chile beyond 30 days after activation on the network. This registration process requires a copy of the identity card of the individual who brought the device into the country, along with a copy of their passport.

There are concerns about the adequacy and effectiveness of the protection and enforcement of IP in Chile. Furthermore, there are concerns about the lack of effective remedies to deal with the illegal circumvention of technological protection measures and about an ineffective Internet Service Provider liability regime against online piracy. Chile passed legislation establishing criminal penalties for the importation, commercialisation, and distribution of decoding devices used for the theft of encrypted program-carrying satellite signals, but it is reported that it lacks information about the full scope of activities criminalised in the implementation of the law and that it should provide remedies or penalties for willfully receiving or further distributing illegally decoded encrypted program-carrying satellite signals. Concerns remain regarding the availability of effective administrative and judicial procedures, and deterrent-level remedies to rightholders and satellite service providers. In addition, it is reported that the rate of unlicensed software installation in the country was 55% in 2017 (above the 52% rate of the Latin American countries) for an estimated commercial value of USD 283 million.

Chile has ratified the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Copyright Treaty.

Chile has ratified the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Performances and Phonograms Treaty.

Act No. 19,039 provides a framework for the effective protection of trade secrets. Arts. 86-88 refer to trade secrets as business secrets. A trade secret is any knowledge relating to products or industrial processes that, when kept secret, confers on its holder a competitive advantage. In order to claim the protection that the Chilean law grants to holders of trade secrets, it is necessary to meet these three requirements: 1) the information should always remain secret, which means that it should not be generally known or readily accessible to third parties; 2) the information must have trade value –or at least potential commercial value– for the SME, and it should be linked to the fact it is secret; 3) the holder of the trade secret must take “reasonable steps” to protect the information as confidential.

According to Art. 26 bis of Law No. 21.245, concessionaires of public telecom services that are assigned rights to use the radioelectric spectrum must allow access and use of their facilities to other public service concessionaires (or concessionaires that are interested in establishing themselves as such) for virtual mobile and automatic roaming operations.

It is reported that Chile does not mandate functional or accounting separation for operators with significant market power (SMP) in the telecom market.