Peru Betting Industry Challenges Gambling Tax

Peru’s regulated online gambling industry is preparing to challenge the constitutionality of the country’s Selective Consumption Tax (ISC) after the National Jury of Elections (JNE) confirmed that the required 5,000 signatures had been collected to file a constitutional claim before the Constitutional Court.

The legal challenge focuses on the ISC introduced through Legislative Decree No. 1644, which was signed by President Dina Boluarte. According to several legal and tax specialists, questions remain over whether the measure complies with constitutional and tax law requirements.

Industry Raises Concerns Over Tax Burden

Under Peru’s current regulatory framework, licensed online betting operators are required to pay a 12% Gaming Tax in addition to a 1% ISC on every wager.

Industry representatives argue that the combined tax structure can result in an overall tax burden exceeding 50% of Gross Gaming Revenue (GGR), depending on each operator’s business model.

The sector says the financial impact is already becoming visible. Between 2025 and 2026, around 40 licensed betting companies exited the Peruvian market, while approximately 1,500 retail betting outlets ceased operations.

The effects have also extended to sports sponsorships. Industry figures indicate that betting operators sponsored 18 professional football clubs in 2024, compared with only five clubs in 2026.

Illegal Operators Gain Ground

Industry stakeholders believe the current tax framework is encouraging players to migrate toward unlicensed offshore betting platforms.

Because these operators are not subject to the same tax obligations, they are often able to offer more competitive odds and payouts, increasing their appeal to consumers while operating outside Peru’s regulated market.

At the same time, lawmakers are expected to review possible amendments to Legislative Decree No. 1644. The discussions in Congress are expected to examine whether changes can provide greater legal certainty while maintaining tax revenues and strengthening efforts against illegal gambling.

Previous Court Decision Could Be Relevant

Legal experts have also pointed to an earlier Constitutional Court ruling involving Peru’s gambling industry.

In Case No. 009-2001-AI/TC, the court declared certain tax provisions affecting casinos and slot machine operators unconstitutional. That decision resulted in changes to the tax framework and compensation for businesses that had paid under the invalid provisions.

Some legal analysts believe that ruling could influence the Constitutional Court’s assessment if it decides to hear the latest challenge against the ISC.

The outcome of both the constitutional proceedings and the legislative debate may play a significant role in determining the future tax structure and regulatory environment for Peru’s licensed betting market.