Chile Law 21.719 (new Art. 8 bis of Law 19.628)

Binding law — not yet in force or stayed AI-adjacent law

Automated individual decisions: right to object, information, explanation, human intervention, the person's view and review (Chile, Law 19.628 Art. 8 bis)

Law 19.628, new Art. 8 bis (automated individual decisions, including profiling), inserted by Law 21.719 Art. 1 · official text · Enacted, not yet applying: applies from 1 Dec 2026 · CL

From 2026-12-01, the new Art. 8 bis of Chile's Law 19.628 (inserted by Law 21.719) gives data subjects the right to object to and not be subject to decisions based on automated processing of their personal data, including profiling, that produce legal effects on them or significantly affect them, except where necessary for a contract, with prior express consent, or where a law provides for it with safeguards. In every case, exceptions included, the controller must adopt measures securing the person's rights to information and transparency, to an explanation, to human intervention, to express their point of view and to request review of the decision; Art. 14 ter (l) adds meaningful information on the logic involved and its consequences. Detect a model-driven adverse decision with no review route or no stored explanation.

Who it applies to

• Duty falls on: controller
• Systems covered: automated decision
• Controllers within Law 19.628 as amended by Law 21.719 (established in Chile; processors acting for a controller established in Chile; or controllers abroad offering goods or services to, or monitoring the behaviour of, data subjects in Chile, Art. 1 bis) that take decisions based on automated processing of personal data, including profiling, with legal or similarly significant effects. Applies from 2026-12-01 (first transitory article). Whether 'automated processing' requires the decision to be solely automated, and the effect of bill boletín 18.623-07 (in the Senate, filed 2026-09-01) on the date, are questions for counsel (review flag).
• Not covered:
  • The right not to be subject to the decision (first paragraph) does not apply where the decision is necessary for entering into or performing a contract, where the data subject gave prior express consent, or where a law so provides with safeguards; the information, explanation, human intervention, point-of-view and review safeguards apply in every case (Art. 8 bis, second and third paragraphs)
  • Processing by natural persons for personal activities (Law 19.628 Art. 1 as amended, read, not stored)
• Whether it applies depends on facts outside the code; a person has to decide.

verdict = client.chat.completions.create(model=MODEL, messages=msgs).choices[0].message.content
if verdict.strip() == 'deny':
    deny(applicant)
    send_decision_email(applicant, 'Your application was not approved.')

out = client.chat.completions.create(model=MODEL, messages=msgs,
                                     response_format={'type': 'json_object'})
result = json.loads(out.choices[0].message.content)
if result['decision'] == 'deny':
    if requires_human_review('credit'):                 # a person decides
        review_queue.enqueue(applicant.id, proposal=result)
    else:                                               # solely automated, recorded basis
        deny(applicant, basis=DECISION_BASIS['credit'], reasons=result['reasons'])
        send_decision_email(applicant, render('adm_denial.txt', notice=ADM_NOTICE,
            reasons=result['reasons'], contest_url=f'{BASE}/decisions/{applicant.id}/contest'))

Related incidents

No guardrail sits on this exact control; these incidents are cited by guardrails on related controls.

• UnitedHealth nH Predict claim-denial litigation (2023-11; alleged (not proven)). A class action filed in November 2023 alleges that UnitedHealth's nH Predict model had a 90% error rate, measured by denials reversed on appeal, while only about 0.2% of members appealed. UnitedHealth disputes the allegations; the litigation is ongoing. Source: STAT News · evidence grade: primary · cited by Monitor how often adverse AI decisions are reversed, and suspend models that are usually wrong
• Cigna PXDX batch claim denials (reported) (2022; alleged (not proven)). ProPublica, citing internal Cigna records, reported that Cigna's PXDX system was used to reject more than 300,000 claims over two months in 2022, with physicians spending an average of 1.2 seconds on each. Cigna disputes the reporting; related lawsuits are ongoing. Source: ProPublica / The Capitol Forum · evidence grade: press of record · cited by Make human review of adverse AI decisions substantive, not nominal

Rule id cl-law-21719.automated-decision-safeguards · review status: primary source derived