The main case to reach the Chilean Supreme Court and involving a so-called “right to be forgotten” was an action requesting Diario El Mercurio to delist from search engines content relating the plaintiff to crimes of child sexual abuse, that would impede the claimant’s reintegration and would bring him serious psychological harms, violating his constitutional right to psychological integrity (Art. 19, 1) and to private life and honor (art. 19, 4). Therefore, although requesting the publisher to delist the content from search engines, the case is not related to a data protection claim, but to the more traditional idea of rehabilitation or reintegration of the plaintiff to society, after having his name associated with a crime that took place more than 10 years before. In its reasoning, the court recognized the passing...
Chile is partecipating in the negotiation of an international agreement including a section on Internet service provider liability, with countries lining up either in favour of a general notification obligation or a notice-and-takedown system with the prospect of terminating subscriber Internet access and content blocking. Chile favors the former approach. See M. Geist Blog post
The plaintiff sought an injunction and relief against a series of Chilean websites as well as Google, claiming that the websites, along with blogs hosted by Google, were making slanderous or offensive accusations against the plaintiff, who is a lawyer. These websites claimed that the plaintiff is corrupt and collaborated with the military dictatorship in the second half of the 20th Century. The Court agreed with the plaintiff and ruled that the right to plaintiff’s honour was affected. The Court ordered the websites to remove the offensive content, including blog posts with offensive accusations. Additionally, the Court ordered Google to establish a filtering mechanism that automatically prevents the publication of “unequivocally” slanderous content. The decision was not appealed.
Claudio Ruiz Gallardo and Juan Carlos Lara Gálvez, Liability of Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and the exercise of freedom of expression in Latin America (2011) Matías Hercovich Montalba, Responsabilidad de los ISP por contenidos ilícitos o infractores de terceros, 2(1) Revista Chilena de Derecho y Tecnología (2013)
In general, this law tackles intermediary non-interference from the perspective of users by adding to the general rules within the General Telecommunications Act (Law Nº 18.168) new rules for internet service providers. Article 24 H states that internet providers (“all natural or legal persons that provide commercial connectivity services between users or its networks and the Internet”): a) shall not block or interfere in any way with the rights of the user to use any content, application or service on the internet; but they may take traffic management measures or block contents upon user requests (and to their cost); b) shall respect device neutrality by not limiting the right to use the internet on any legal device that does not impair use of the net or the quality of service; c) shall offer parental control services...
Together with new copyright exceptions and limitations and the new rules for collecting societies’ tariff procedures, this amendement establishes a regime of limitations on liability for information service providers, as defined in Artice 5 Y. A number of Articles deal specifically with intermediary liability. Article 85 L provides a liability limitation for ISPs as long as they comply with the conditions and requirements of this law, regardless of potential regular civil liability. Article 85 M provides general conditions for limiting liability of transmission, routing, or connection providers that do not modify or select content, or initiate or select the destination of transmissions. Article 85 N provides general conditions for limiting liability among caching service providers that respect access and update...