On March 5, 2026, the Supreme Court upheld an economic protection action filed by the retail finance industry and voided Exempt Resolution No. 286 of the Undersecretariat of Telecommunications (Subtel). The obligation to channel all extrajudicial debt collection calls through the 600 and 809 prefixes was declared illegal. The core reasoning: collecting a debt by phone does not transform that call into a supplementary telecommunications service.
What happened
In February 2025, Subtel issued Exempt Resolution No. 286 and created two categories of supplementary telephone services: unsolicited mass communications (prefix 809) and solicited mass communications (prefix 600). Through a subsequent clarifying memorandum, the regulator specified that extrajudicial debt collection calls fell within those categories.
The operational impact was immediate. Consumers could automatically block or filter calls from those prefixes on their devices. For the financial and retail industry, the effective contact rate with debtors would drop significantly.
The industry challenged the resolution in court. The Santiago Court of Appeals rejected the appeal. The Supreme Court reversed.
The court's reasoning was direct. The General Telecommunications Law defines supplementary services as additional services that a user can contract, pay for, and stop using. A collect call service or voicemail service fits that definition. A debt collection call does not: the debtor did not contract it, did not request it, does not pay for it, and cannot waive receipt.
The Supreme Court's conclusion was categorical: a collection call is a direct communication from creditor to debtor that uses the telephone as a medium, not as a service. And that activity already has its own regulation under Law 19,496, which establishes rules on the frequency, timing, content, and privacy of collection activities.
What this could mean for your company
If your company conducts extrajudicial debt collection calls — directly or through third parties — the ruling eliminates a restriction that threatened the effectiveness of the entire collection operation.
With the Subtel resolution in force, every call had to be channeled through prefixes that consumers could silence with a single click. The ruling revoked that requirement. Your collection operation can be conducted from any conventional telephone number.
But the Supreme Court was emphatic on one point worth noting. Extrajudicial debt collection has its own regulatory framework under Law 19,496. Articles 37 and following regulate contact frequency, permitted hours, communication content, and debtor privacy. The ruling did not deregulate debt collection; it returned it to its proper legal framework.
This means regulatory pressure has not disappeared: it has shifted. Companies remain subject to SERNAC oversight, not Subtel's. And SERNAC has its own enforcement tools, including fines of up to 50 UTM per violation.
Another angle: the ruling addressed Exempt Resolution No. 286, not Subtel's general authority to regulate commercial communications. If the telecommunications regulator redesigns its approach without classifying debt collection as a supplementary service, the debate could reopen on different grounds.
What you can do
- Verify that your collection operation complies with Law 19,496. Review permitted hours, contact frequency, creditor and debt identification, prohibition of harassment, and debtor data treatment.
- Evaluate your telephone setup. If you migrated your operation to 600 or 809 prefixes in compliance with the now-revoked resolution, decide whether to maintain that configuration or return to conventional numbers based on your contact strategy.
- Update your contracts with external collection agencies. Ensure that compliance standards under Law 19,496 are contractually incorporated and that collection providers operate within the framework now overseen by SERNAC.
If you need to review your collection operation in light of this ruling or update your compliance protocols, schedule a consultation with our team.
This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice for any specific case.