Chile Recording Laws: One-Party Consent, Penalties & 2026 Updates

Chile permits participants in any conversation or phone call to record without notifying other parties, under the Supreme Court's interpretation of Art. 161-A of the Codigo Penal in BCI (Rol 35.159-2017). Unauthorized third-party recording carries 61 days to 5 years imprisonment and fines up to 500 UTM.

Quick Answer: Is Chile a One-Party or All-Party Consent State?

Chile is effectively a one-party consent jurisdiction under Chilean Supreme Court jurisprudence. Article 161-A of the Codigo Penal, introduced by Ley 19.423 in 1995, prohibits unauthorized capture or recording of private communications, but courts have consistently interpreted the statute as targeting third-party intruders rather than participants in a conversation. The Supreme Court confirmed this reading in the landmark BCI decision (Rol No. 35.159-2017, April 12, 2018): a worker who recorded a meeting with company executives was a participant in the conversation, not an intruder, and the recording did not violate Art. 161-A. As a participant in any conversation, telephone call, or meeting, you may generally record it without criminal liability under Chilean law, subject to the contextual reasonable expectation of privacy test described below.

Jurisdiction scope: This article addresses recording and wiretapping law in Chile under the Codigo Penal (Arts. 161-A through 161-C), the Codigo Procesal Penal (Art. 222), the Constitution of Chile (Art. 19, Nos. 4 and 5), Ley 21.523 (Ley Antonia), and Ley 21.719 (data protection). It does not address recording laws in other Latin American jurisdictions; for those, see the world recording laws hub.

Constitutional Foundation: Article 19, Numbers 4 and 5

All recording protections in Chile flow from two provisions of the Constitucion Politica de la Republica de Chile:

Article 19, Number 4 guarantees "the respect and protection of the private life and honor of every person and their family." This provision establishes privacy of personal and family life as a fundamental right enforceable against both state actors and private parties.

Article 19, Number 5 declares "the inviolability of every form of private communication." It states that only a judge may authorize the interception, opening, or registration of private communications, and only in the specific cases and forms established by law. This provision is the direct constitutional basis for the criminal prohibitions in Art. 161-A and for the judicial authorization requirement in Art. 222 of the Codigo Procesal Penal.

Together, these two constitutional provisions mean that:

• Recording or intercepting a private communication without judicial authorization or the parties' consent implicates a constitutional right, not merely a statutory rule.
• Courts reviewing allegedly illegal recordings apply a constitutional analysis, not merely a criminal-law analysis.
• The reasonable expectation of privacy test developed in BCI and in earlier Corte Suprema decisions operates against this constitutional backdrop.

The Constitutional Tribunal (Tribunal Constitucional) has addressed the scope of Art. 19 N5 in several rulings, confirming that "private communication" encompasses telephone calls, electronic messaging, and any transmission of messages between identified persons through any technical means.

The Core Statute: Art. 161-A of the Codigo Penal

Ley 19.423, published in the Diario Oficial on November 20, 1995, added Articles 161-A and 161-B to Chile's Penal Code. These articles create criminal offenses designed to protect the private lives of individuals and their families.

What Art. 161-A Prohibits

The first paragraph of Art. 161-A punishes anyone who, in private premises or places not freely accessible to the public, without authorization from the affected party and by any means:

• Captures, intercepts, records, or reproduces private conversations or communications
• Removes, photographs, photocopies, or reproduces private documents or instruments
• Captures, records, films, or photographs images or private acts that occur in private premises or places not freely accessible to the public

The key elements are: (1) the conduct occurs in a private or non-public location, (2) there is no authorization from the affected person, and (3) the material captured is of a private nature.

Dissemination of Recordings

The second paragraph of Art. 161-A imposes equal penalties on anyone who disseminates the conversations, communications, documents, images, or facts obtained through the means described in the first paragraph. Sharing an illegally obtained recording is itself a separate criminal offense carrying the same punishment as making the recording.

Aggravated Offense: Capture Plus Dissemination

The third paragraph creates an aggravated offense. When the same person both captures the private material and disseminates it, the penalty increases to reclusion menor in its maximum degree (3 years and 1 day to 5 years) and a fine of 100 to 500 UTM.

A person who secretly records a private conversation and then posts it online or shares it with the media faces significantly harsher punishment than someone who only records or only disseminates.

Exceptions to Art. 161-A

The fourth paragraph of Art. 161-A explicitly exempts persons who are authorized by law or by judicial order to perform the described actions. This exception covers:

• Law enforcement officers acting under a valid court order
• Intelligence agents operating under Ley 19.974 (Sistema de Inteligencia del Estado)
• Any person with a legitimate legal basis for the recording

Art. 161-C: Intimate Images in Public Spaces

Ley 21.153 (2019) added Art. 161-C to the Codigo Penal. This provision fills a gap that Art. 161-A could not address: it covers public spaces, where Art. 161-A does not apply.

Art. 161-C punishes anyone who by any means captures, records, films, or photographs images, videos, or audiovisual records of the genitals or other intimate body part of another person for sexual purposes and without that person's consent, in public spaces or places freely accessible to the public.

This is the statute that addresses upskirt filming, locker-room hidden cameras in gyms, and similar conduct in accessible spaces. The penalty mirrors the Art. 161-A structure: imprisonment plus UTM-denominated fines.

Related Cybercrime Provisions: Ley 21.459

Ley 21.459 (2022), Chile's cybercrime statute implementing the Budapest Convention, added Articles 161-I through 161-N to the Penal Code. These provisions address unauthorized access to computer systems and interception of electronic data in transit. Where a recording involves accessing computer networks or intercepting digital communications in ways that go beyond the phone-call or in-person conversation scenarios covered by Art. 161-A, Ley 21.459 may provide an additional basis for prosecution.

One-Party Consent: The Supreme Court Interpretation

While Art. 161-A on its face appears to require consent of the "affected party" for any recording, Chilean courts have consistently interpreted the provision more narrowly. The dominant judicial view holds that Art. 161-A punishes only the conduct of a third-party intruder who intercepts or captures a communication to which they are not a party.

Under this interpretation, a participant in a conversation is not an "intruder" and therefore falls outside the scope of the criminal prohibition. If you are part of a conversation, you may generally record it without committing the offense described in Art. 161-A.

The BCI Case (Rol 35.159-2017)

The most significant ruling on this issue is the Supreme Court's decision in the BCI case (Recurso de Unificacion de Jurisprudencia, Rol No. 35.159-2017), decided on April 12, 2018 by the Fourth Chamber (Cuarta Sala Laboral) of the Corte Suprema.

The case arose from a complaint of anti-union practices filed against Banco de Credito e Inversiones (BCI). During a prolonged strike, a company representative (Sr. Valdes Hernandez) met with approximately eight workers who had abandoned the strike to discuss their employment situations. One attendee recorded the meeting without the representative's knowledge. Workers then used the recording as evidence of anti-union conduct.

The Court of Appeals of Santiago initially agreed with BCI and excluded the recording. The Supreme Court reversed that decision, holding that:

1. The exclusion of evidence requires a violation of constitutional guarantees, not merely a breach of a penal statute.
2. The workers were participants in the conversation they recorded, not third-party intruders.
3. The recording took place at a workplace meeting with multiple attendees during a labor conflict, where the speakers had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the statements they made in their employer capacity.

The Reasonable Expectation of Privacy Test

The BCI ruling adopted a two-part test:

1. Subjective expectation: Did the person being recorded actually believe their communication was private?
2. Objective reasonableness: Would society recognize that belief as legitimate given the circumstances?

Under this standard, the admissibility of a participant's recording depends not on whether consent was obtained but on whether the recorded party had a reasonable expectation of confidentiality in the specific context. A statement made openly at a multi-person workplace meeting during a labor dispute carries little expectation of privacy, while a whispered personal conversation between two people in a closed room may carry a strong one.

Watch out: The BCI test is contextual. Even as a participant, recording a conversation where the other party has communicated a clear expectation of confidentiality (for example, a meeting explicitly designated as confidential, or a conversation in a private setting covered by professional privilege) may still expose you to civil or labor-law consequences, even if criminal liability under Art. 161-A is avoided.

Art. 161-B: Blackmail Using Recordings

Article 161-B of the Codigo Penal addresses what comparative law calls "blackmail" or "chantaje." It punishes anyone who attempts to obtain money, property, or any conduct not legally obligatory by threatening to use recordings or materials obtained through the methods described in Art. 161-A.

The penalty is reclusion menor in its maximum degree (3 years and 1 day to 5 years) and a fine of 100 to 500 UTM. If the conduct demanded of the victim itself constitutes a crime, the imprisonment penalty increases by one degree.

This provision ensures that even if a recording was lawfully made, using it as leverage to extort someone is a serious criminal offense.

Phone Calls and In-Person Conversations

Telephone and Electronic Communications

Art. 161-A covers "conversaciones o comunicaciones de caracter privado" without distinguishing between phone calls, digital messages, or face-to-face conversations. The law applies equally to:

• Traditional telephone calls
• Mobile phone conversations
• Voice-over-IP (VoIP) calls, including WhatsApp, Zoom, Teams, and similar platforms
• Electronic messaging (email, chat, SMS)
• Video calls

For telephone intercepts by third parties, Art. 222 of the Codigo Procesal Penal provides the framework for law enforcement wiretapping, which requires judicial authorization.

The one-party consent principle from the BCI jurisprudence applies equally to phone recordings. If you are a party to the phone call, you may record it. A third party who taps the line without authorization commits a criminal offense.

In-Person Conversations

In-person conversations receive the same protection under Art. 161-A. The critical factor is whether the conversation takes place in a "private premises or place not freely accessible to the public." Conversations in truly public spaces, such as a park, a restaurant, or a public plaza, fall outside the scope of Art. 161-A because they do not occur in private or restricted-access locations.

However, even in semi-public places, the reasonable expectation of privacy test applies. A whispered conversation at a restaurant table may still carry a privacy expectation, while a loud argument in the same restaurant likely would not.

Law Enforcement Wiretapping in Chile

Art. 222 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

Article 222 of Chile's Codigo Procesal Penal governs lawful interception of communications by the state during criminal investigations. Key requirements include:

• Judicial authorization: Only a guarantee judge (juez de garantia) may order the interception, and only at the request of the Public Ministry (Ministerio Publico).
• Threshold: There must be well-founded suspicions, based on specific facts, that a person has committed or is preparing to commit a crime punishable as a felony (pena de crimen).
• Scope: The order may only target the accused or persons with well-founded connections to the communication.
• Duration: Interception cannot exceed 60 days, though the judge may grant extensions of equal length.
• Attorney-client privilege: Communications between the accused and their attorney cannot be intercepted unless the judge finds, based on specific facts, that the attorney may have criminal responsibility.
• Specificity: The order must identify the affected individual, the communication means to be intercepted, the responsible authority, and the scope and duration of the measure.

Ley 19.974: Intelligence Intercepts

Ley 19.974, which created Chile's National Intelligence Agency (Agencia Nacional de Inteligencia, or ANI), contains separate provisions for intelligence-related intercepts.

Article 24 of Ley 19.974 allows interception of telephone, computer, radio, and postal communications in investigations related to national security matters. Key safeguards include:

• A judge must authorize the intercept
• The order must identify the person and specify the form, scope, and duration
• Maximum duration is 60 days
• Attorney-client communications are protected unless the judge finds the attorney may be involved in the investigated conduct
• Intercepted files go directly to the prosecutor, who seals them and guarantees confidentiality
• If files become irrelevant, a copy is sent to the affected individuals and the prosecutor's copy is destroyed

Ley 21.638: Police Must Record Their Own Actions

Ley 21.638, published December 26, 2023, introduced a recording obligation that runs in the opposite direction: it requires Carabineros and PDI (Policia de Investigaciones) to make audiovisual recordings of their autonomous actions in criminal proceedings. The duty applies in:

• Public places and places freely accessible to the public
• Closed places when making arrests in flagrante
• Closed places when executing searches, with or without prior judicial authorization

This law creates an accountability mechanism for police conduct and means that the absence of police-generated footage is now a procedurally significant fact in criminal proceedings.

Recording Police (Carabineros and PDI)

Citizens in Chile have no explicit statutory prohibition on filming or photographing police officers performing their duties in public. The right to record police is grounded in:

• Freedom of expression under Art. 19, No. 12 of the Constitution
• Right to defense: recordings may document police conduct relevant to a citizen's legal interests
• Transparency of public functions: police acting in their official capacity in public spaces have a reduced expectation of privacy compared to private individuals

Key practical rules under Chilean law and established practice:

• Police cannot seize your phone or force you to delete recordings made in public
• Recording must not physically interfere with a police operation (obstructing an arrest or a crime scene may create independent liability)
• If you capture images of a crime in progress, you may deliver recordings to Carabineros, PDI, or the Ministerio Publico, but distributing such footage on social media or private messaging platforms before it is reviewed by prosecutors may create legal complications
• Recording in public spaces is not covered by Art. 161-A (which applies only to private or restricted-access premises)

Ley 21.638's establishment of a police self-recording duty has reinforced the broader expectation that police conduct in public is subject to audiovisual accountability, further supporting the right of citizens to document it.

Workplace Recording Laws in Chile

Labor Code Art. 154 bis: Employee Privacy

Article 154 bis of Chile's Labor Code establishes the employer's obligation to maintain confidentiality regarding employees' personal and private information accessed through the employment relationship. This provision creates a duty of care that limits what employers can do with information about their workers.

The broader constitutional framework reinforces this. Article 19, No. 4 of the Chilean Constitution guarantees the respect and protection of the private life and honor of every person and their family.

Employer Surveillance, CCTV, and Monitoring

Chilean labor regulations impose strict conditions on employer surveillance in the workplace:

• CCTV cameras must be oriented on a panoramic view and cannot be aimed at a specific employee
• Camera locations must be disclosed to employees and cannot be clandestine
• Cameras cannot cover recreation areas (dining rooms, rest areas) or spaces where no work activity occurs (bathrooms, lockers, dressing rooms)
• Employers must inform employees of all surveillance measures in the Internal Rules of Order, Hygiene, and Safety (Reglamento Interno de Orden, Higiene y Seguridad)
• Audio recording of employees is more restricted than video surveillance

Violations of these workplace surveillance rules may result in sanctions from the Direccion del Trabajo (Chile's labor inspection authority).

Employee Recordings as Evidence

Following the BCI ruling, recordings made by employees in the workplace may be admissible as evidence in labor disputes, provided the reasonable expectation of privacy test is satisfied. Key factors courts consider include:

• Whether the employee was a participant in the recorded conversation
• Whether the recording took place during a work meeting or in a context involving workplace rights
• Whether the employer had communicated a clear expectation of confidentiality before or during the meeting
• Whether the topic related to the employee's labor rights or the employer's obligations

Chilean courts have also upheld employee dismissals for recording meetings covering confidential business matters without authorization. The Corte Suprema has confirmed in post-BCI rulings that not every participant recording is automatically admissible: context, the nature of the information, and any explicit confidentiality notices the employer gave can shift the reasonable-expectation analysis against the recording employee. Consult a labor attorney before relying on a workplace recording as evidence in a labor proceeding.

Recording in Public Spaces

Recording in public spaces in Chile is generally permitted. Art. 161-A specifically limits its criminal prohibitions to "private premises or places not freely accessible to the public." This means that:

• Filming or photographing in streets, plazas, parks, and other public spaces is lawful
• Recording public events, protests, or government officials performing public duties is generally protected
• Security cameras in public areas operated by municipalities or businesses (facing public space) do not violate Art. 161-A

However, even in public spaces, you cannot:

• Record private conversations that you are not part of (third-party eavesdropping)
• Use recording to harass or stalk individuals
• Capture images in a manner that violates a person's dignity or that falls within Art. 161-C (intimate images without consent)

The reasonable expectation of privacy framework applies contextually. Public officials performing their duties in government buildings may have a reduced expectation of privacy in the public-facing aspects of their conduct, as Chilean legal commentators have noted in recent debates.

Penalties for Illegal Recording in Chile

Penalty Breakdown by Offense

The penalties under Articles 161-A and 161-B use Chile's graduated imprisonment system. One Unidad Tributaria Mensual (UTM) is worth approximately CLP 69,889 as of early 2026 (roughly USD 70).

The imprisonment range of "reclusion menor in any of its degrees" spans three levels:

• Minimum degree (grado minimo): 61 days to 540 days
• Medium degree (grado medio): 541 days to 3 years and 1 day
• Maximum degree (grado maximo): 3 years and 1 day to 5 years

Civil Remedies

Beyond criminal liability, an unlawful recording can give rise to civil claims under Chile's general tort law (responsabilidad extracontractual under Arts. 2314 et seq. of the Codigo Civil). A person whose private communications were recorded without authorization may sue for moral damages (dano moral). Claimants routinely invoke Art. 19, No. 4 of the Constitution as part of their civil claims, given its direct recognition of a right to private life and honor.

Ley 21.523 (Ley Antonia), Image-Based Abuse, and Deepfakes

Ley 21.523 (Ley Antonia, January 2023)

Ley 21.523, known as the "Ley Antonia," was published in the Diario Oficial in January 2023. The law is named after Antonia Barra, a university student who died by suicide after being sexually assaulted in 2019. The law's primary focus is strengthening procedural protections for sexual crime victims:

• The criminal prescription period for sexual abuse was extended to ten years
• Courts must impose protective measures for victims and their families at any stage of the investigation, at the judge's discretion
• Media must protect victim identity through initials, numbers, or other anonymization
• Journalists and media are prohibited from stereotyping or normalizing sexual violence in coverage of these cases
• Judges and legal professionals are required to receive mandatory gender-perspective training

Ley Antonia does not create new recording-specific offenses but affects recording cases that arise in the context of sexual crimes: for example, the recording or sharing of evidence in a sexual assault investigation is subject to strict confidentiality rules under the law, and unauthorized disclosure of a victim's identity or the content of their testimony may violate its victim-protection provisions.

Art. 161-C: Intimate Images in Public (Ley 21.153, 2019)

As noted above, Art. 161-C (added by Ley 21.153 in 2019) directly addresses the capture of intimate images in public or freely accessible spaces without the subject's consent. This is the primary criminal provision for so-called "upskirt" photography and similar conduct. The law addresses image capture; distribution of such images without consent implicates Art. 161-A's dissemination provisions as well.

Deepfake and AI Legislation: Pending as of 2026

Chile does not yet have a fully enacted law specifically targeting AI-generated deepfakes for general purposes, but two legislative processes are active:

Comprehensive AI Regulation Bill (Proyecto de Ley IA): Submitted by President Boric's government on May 7, 2024, approved by the Chamber of Deputies on October 13, 2025, and under Senate review as of early 2026. The bill adopts a risk-based four-level approach and classifies AI systems used to produce non-consensual sexual deepfakes of children as categorically unacceptable uses with the strictest prohibitions.

Deepfake Labeling Bill (Senate, June 2025): A separate bill introduced June 17, 2025 would require a clear and traceable label on all AI-generated audiovisual content and would impose fines of up to 10,000 UTM (approximately USD 700,000) for creation and distribution of unlabeled or deceptive deepfakes.

Senate Motion on AI-Generated Intimate Images (December 2024): Senator Bianchi's motion, referred to the Senate's Constitutional Commission on December 26, 2024, proposes amending the Penal Code to criminalize the creation and distribution of AI-generated intimate images without authorization, with penalties mirroring the Art. 161-A structure (50 to 500 UTM plus minor imprisonment).

Until these bills are enacted, AI-generated intimate imagery without consent is analyzed under existing provisions: Art. 161-C (if the original capture was in a public space), Art. 161-A's dissemination paragraph (if the underlying material was obtained by unauthorized recording), and potentially Ley 21.719's data processing rules (once fully effective in December 2026) if the imagery involves processing identifiable personal data.

Watch out: The gap between current law and proposed AI legislation means that purely synthetic deepfakes (where no actual recording of the person occurred) may not be clearly covered by existing criminal statutes. Legal developments in this area are moving rapidly; consult a Chilean lawyer for fact-specific advice on AI-generated content.

Ley 19.628 and the New Data Protection Framework (Ley 21.719)

Ley 19.628: The Outgoing Regime

Chile's first comprehensive data protection statute, Ley 19.628, was enacted in 1999 and remained largely unchanged for 25 years. It established basic rules for processing personal data held in databases, required data subject consent for most processing, and gave individuals rights of access, rectification, and cancellation. However, the law lacked an independent supervisory authority, carried weak penalty structures, and was widely recognized as inadequate for the digital economy.

Ley 21.719: Chile's New Data Protection Law

Ley 21.719, published in the Diario Oficial on December 13, 2024, replaces Ley 19.628 and creates a comprehensive modern framework. The law becomes fully effective in December 2026 after a 24-month implementation and transition period.

Key provisions relevant to recording:

• Consent (Art. 12): Consent to process personal data must be free, informed, specific as to its purpose, given in advance, and expressed through an unequivocal affirmative action. Pre-ticked boxes and implied consent are prohibited. Any recording that captures identifiable personal data (including voice recordings, video footage of identified persons, or metadata linking a communication to an identified individual) constitutes personal data processing subject to these consent rules once the law takes effect.

• Agencia de Proteccion de Datos Personales: The law creates Chile's first independent data protection authority with supervisory, regulatory, and sanctioning powers. The Agencia will publish lists of countries with adequate protection for cross-border data transfers, issue model contractual clauses, and conduct binding enforcement.

• Expanded data subject rights: Beyond the existing ARCO rights (access, rectification, suppression, opposition), the law adds data portability (Art. 9), the right to block processing during disputes (Art. 8 ter), and the right to object to automated profiling with legal effects (Art. 8 bis).

• Penalty tiers: Minor violations carry fines of up to 5,000 UTM; serious violations up to 10,000 UTM; very serious violations up to 20,000 UTM (approximately USD 1.55 million). For repeat very serious violations by non-small businesses, penalties can reach 2 to 4 percent of annual revenues. A five-year public registry of sanctioned entities adds reputational consequences.

• Extraterritorial reach (Art. 1 bis): The law applies to any organization processing personal data of Chilean residents, regardless of where the organization is located.

Practical implications for recording: Any organization that records telephone calls with Chilean customers, stores audio or video of identified persons, or processes voice biometrics will need to bring its practices into compliance with Ley 21.719 by December 2026. The consent requirements are stricter than under Ley 19.628; blanket call-recording notices that predate the 2024 law should be reviewed against the new specificity and affirmative-action requirements.

Chile has pursued (but had not formally obtained as of early 2026) an EU adequacy decision, which would facilitate personal data transfers between the EU and Chile. The enactment of Ley 21.719 with its EU-aligned framework is intended to support that adequacy application.

Cross-Border Recording

Chile's one-party consent rule applies to recordings made in Chile. Cross-border situations introduce complications that Chilean law alone does not resolve:

Receiving recordings from two-party consent jurisdictions: If a party in a US state with all-party consent (for example, California under Cal. Penal Code § 632) or in the European Union records a call that also involves a Chilean party and does so without the Chilean party's knowledge, that recording may violate the law of the other jurisdiction even if it would be lawful under Chilean law. The Chilean party who receives such a recording should be aware that using it in proceedings or publishing it may expose the recording party to liability in their home jurisdiction.

Chileans recording parties abroad: A Chilean participant recording a call with a party in another jurisdiction is generally governed by Chilean law for the act of recording (one-party consent applies). However, the other party's jurisdiction may still have criminal or civil provisions that apply extraterritorially to the recording or its use.

Ley 21.719 and extraterritoriality: Once Ley 21.719 is fully effective in December 2026, organizations outside Chile that record or process the voice, video, or biometric data of Chilean residents will be subject to the law's consent and data-subject rights requirements, regardless of where the recording takes place.

For international business calls, the safest practice is to provide notice and obtain consent from all parties, satisfying both the Chilean and any applicable foreign jurisdiction's standards simultaneously.

Business Compliance and Practical Guidance

Organizations operating in Chile should take the following steps to ensure compliance with recording and privacy laws:

For call recording and customer communications:

• Obtain explicit consent before recording calls with customers or clients
• Provide clear notice that calls may be recorded, stating the purpose specifically (this satisfies both current practice and Ley 21.719's Art. 12 requirements for December 2026)
• Document consent mechanisms and retention policies
• Review existing consent language before December 2026 to ensure it meets the "free, informed, specific, unequivocal" standard of Ley 21.719

For workplace surveillance:

• Limit CCTV to common work areas with panoramic orientation
• Disclose all monitoring in the Internal Rules of Order, Hygiene, and Safety
• Never install cameras in bathrooms, lockers, dining areas, or rest rooms
• Avoid audio recording in the workplace absent specific legal authorization
• Consult with the Direccion del Trabajo when implementing new surveillance measures

For meetings and negotiations:

• Establish clear ground rules about recording at the outset of sensitive meetings
• If confidentiality is important, communicate that expectation explicitly; this shifts the BCI reasonable-expectation analysis
• Be aware that participants may lawfully record under the BCI standard unless a strong and clearly communicated privacy expectation is established

For data handling after December 2026:

• Comply with employee data confidentiality obligations under Labor Code Art. 154 bis
• Map all recording systems to Ley 21.719's legal-basis requirements
• Appoint or designate a compliance lead for Agencia de Proteccion de Datos Personales obligations
• Begin data subject rights procedures (access, portability, objection) now, before enforcement begins

Disclaimer

This article presents general legal information about recording laws in Chile. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Laws cited reflect their in-force versions as of May 2026. Readers should consult a lawyer licensed in Chile for advice about their specific situation.

Authorities Cited