AI Regulation Tracker / Legislative signal
Chile's lower house voted 128-2 to advance the deepfake bill, not to pass it
The Camara de Diputadas y Diputados approved Boletin 17795-19 in general on 22 July 2026. This is a first-stage floor vote on a bill. It is not a binding rule and it imposes no obligations on anyone operating in Chile today.
What exactly did the Chamber vote on?
The voting record is short, and it is the whole story. Here is the operative text as the Camara publishes it.
Proyecto De Ley: 17795-19 / Fecha: 22 julio 2026 / Materia: Regula la creacion y difusion de imitaciones digitales realistas de la imagen, cuerpo o voz de las personas, generadas mediante inteligencia artificial / Sesion: Sesion n°47, Ordinaria del 22 Jul 2026 a las 10:01hrs. / Tramite: Primer Tramite / Primer Informe / Quorum: Quorum Simple / Resultado: Aprobado / A Favor 128 | En Contra 2 | Abstencion 5 | Dispensados 0Camara de Diputadas y Diputados de Chile, Detalle de Votacion
In English: Bill 17795-19. Date, 22 July 2026. Subject, regulates the creation and dissemination of realistic digital imitations of the image, body or voice of persons, generated by means of artificial intelligence. Session no. 47, Ordinary, 10:01 hrs. Stage, first constitutional stage, first report. Quorum, simple. Result, approved. In favour 128, against 2, abstentions 5, excused 0.
That is the entire evidentiary basis for this story. A subject line, a stage, a quorum, a tally. The record does not publish the article text that was voted, and it does not publish a penalty schedule.
Why the vote date is 22 July and not 23 July
Several Chilean outlets dated this vote to Thursday 23 July 2026. The Camara's own Detalle de Votacion puts it at 22 July 2026, Sesion n°47, Ordinaria, 10:01 hrs. When the voting record and the press disagree about when a chamber voted, the record wins. If you are building a regulatory timeline, use 22 July 2026 and cite the record, because the date is what an auditor checks first and the press date will not reconcile.
How far is this from being law in Chile?
Further than the headlines suggest. A vote in general is the first meaningful test inside the first constitutional stage. It is a vote on the idea, on whether to legislate at all. The text then goes back to committee, here the Comision de Futuro, Ciencias, Tecnologia, Conocimiento e Innovacion, where members file indicaciones, the amendments that decide what the law actually says. Under Chile's standard legislative process, after a vote in general the chamber typically proceeds to a vote in particular, article by article. Only after that does the bill reach the Senate for the second constitutional stage, where the same two-step repeats and where the Senate can modify the text.
Beyond that, Chilean procedure may involve a mixed commission if the chambers disagree, presidential observations, and possible review by the Tribunal Constitucional before promulgation. Then publication in the Diario Oficial, and only then a text that binds anybody. For US readers, a rough analogy is a committee-reported bill clearing an initial floor-advancement vote in one house. There is political momentum, but still zero legal obligations at this stage.
What the record does not support
Chilean press coverage cited specific fine figures (5,000 to 10,000 UTM), platform labelling duties, a local-representative requirement and injunctive powers. None of these appear in the voting record, which is the only primary source for this story. The voting record does not publish the article text that was voted on. Any penalty or duty described in press coverage cannot be verified against a primary source and should not be treated as settled.
So the only position supported by the voting record is that it does not disclose any penalty schedule at this stage. Any number quoted today describes a draft that has not been voted in particular, has not reached the Senate, and has not been published. Putting it in a compliance memo as a Chilean exposure figure would be a mistake, and a predictable one, because the number is the most quotable thing in the story and the least stable thing in the bill.
Press reporting states the bill was filed on 21 August 2025 with deputy Gael Yeomans as lead author. The voting record does not include filing or authorship details. A 128-2-5 tally suggests broad support in the Chamber, but the voting record alone does not disclose party positions or the reasons for the two votes against. The fights come over scope and penalties, in the particular vote.
Where Chile sits against the rest of Latin America
Across a few selected Latin American instruments already in force, the main differences that matter for exposure include whether rules are criminal or civil, whether they address consent of the depicted person, and whether platforms carry duties of their own. Chile is an outlier in this table because, at the current stage of Boletin 17795-19, the voting record does not reveal whether any eventual regime will be criminal, civil, address consent, or impose platform-specific duties.
| Jurisdiction and instrument | Status | Criminal or civil | Consent of the depicted person | Duties on platforms |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chile, Boletin 17795-19 | Bill. Approved in general, first constitutional stage, 22 July 2026 | Not evidenced by the voting record | Not evidenced by the voting record | Not evidenced by the voting record |
| Peru, Law 32314 | Enacted law | Criminal. Aggravating circumstance where AI is used | Framed around harm to the victim, not a consent permission | No standalone platform duty |
| Mexico, penal code reform on AI identity impersonation | Enacted criminal provision | Criminal | Turns on impersonation and absence of authorisation | No standalone platform duty |
| Brazil, TSE Resolution 23.755 | In force, electoral context only | Administrative and electoral | Not a defence in the electoral prohibition | Yes. Labelling and removal duties |
Rows other than Chile summarise instruments covered in their own tracker entries; the Chile row is limited to what the voting record establishes. The pattern worth noticing is that the region's enacted instruments are criminal or electoral, and the platform duties that most concern a US company arrive through the electoral channel first. The voting record's subject line refers to realistic digital imitations of the image, body or voice of persons. Whether the bill creates criminal penalties, civil liability, or both is not evidenced by the voting record.
What should a US company operating in Chile do now?
Nothing involving Chilean compliance filings, because there is nothing to file against. What is worth doing is cheap and useful however the bill lands.
If you run marketing or communications using synthetic voice or likeness in Chile, write down where you use it and whose likeness it derives from. The enacted instruments in Peru, Mexico and Brazil all turn on the identity of the person depicted; whether Chile's bill does the same is not evidenced by the voting record. An inventory that cannot answer whose face and whose voice is the one document you cannot reconstruct later. If consent from the depicted person becomes relevant under the enacted law, contemporaneous records will be more credible than retroactive claims. The voting record does not establish whether consent is a defence.
For concrete compliance exposure, the vote in particular will matter more than this one. The general vote signals that the Chamber is willing to legislate on this subject. The particular vote will determine the final article text, including whether any proposed penalties, platform duties or local-representative requirements survive. Do not budget against a fine figure. Not yet.
Frequently asked questions
Did Chile pass a deepfake law on 22 July 2026?
No. The Chamber of Deputies approved Boletin 17795-19 in general, by 128 in favour, 2 against and 5 abstentions, in Session no. 47 of 22 July 2026. Approval in general at the first constitutional stage means the chamber accepted the idea of legislating. The text is not enacted and imposes no duties on anyone.
Was the vote on 22 or 23 July 2026?
The Chamber's own voting record dates it 22 July 2026, Session no. 47, Ordinary, at 10:01 hrs. Several Chilean outlets reported 23 July. Where the press and the official voting record disagree, the voting record controls.
What are the penalties under the Chilean bill?
The penalty schedule is not settled at this stage. Figures circulating in Chilean press coverage come from summaries of the committee text, not from the voting record. Treat any specific fine figure as provisional until the enacted text is published in the Diario Oficial.
What happens next?
The bill returns to the Comision de Futuro, Ciencias, Tecnologia, Conocimiento e Innovacion for indicaciones, then a vote in particular in the Chamber, then the Senate. Review by the Tribunal Constitucional is possible before promulgation.
Last verified: July 28, 2026