Uruguay Debates Social Media, Data, and Online Gambling

Update August 31, 2026: The social media and minors bill now has a clearer penalty framework, with fines of between $500,000 and $1 million to be administered by AGESIC. In addition, Parliament, AGESIC, and the UN are promoting a public consultation on the impact of social media, video games, and artificial intelligence on children and teenagers, open until September 10, 2026.

Uruguay opened a series of legislative and industry debates in August covering privacy, digital platforms, and compliance. A bill entered the Chamber of Representatives to bar children under 15 from creating social media profiles, while the Senate approved the Open Finance System with a clause that prevents services from being denied to users who do not authorize the use of their data. At the same time, casino operators are pushing for online gambling rules with security and traceability controls.

What does the social media and minors bill propose?

The bill promoted by Colorado lawmaker Felipe Schipani would prohibit children under 15 from creating social media profiles and would add further restrictions for teenagers ages 15 to 17. Those limits include requiring private accounts and restricting targeted advertising aimed at that age group.

The measure entered the Chamber of Representatives in the first days of August 2026, according to la diaria. It also places compliance responsibility on digital platforms and sets fines that the publication places between $500,000 and $1 million. The Agency for Electronic Government and Information and Knowledge Society, known as AGESIC, would be in charge of enforcing them.

Schipani called those penalties quite onerous, in line with a scheme designed to hit platforms economically if they violate the rule. The proposal came up amid a broader debate over what regulatory limits can be applied to services aimed at minors without blocking legitimate use of social networks.

What changed in the Open Finance System?

The Senate approved the Competitiveness and Cost of Living Reduction bill with a change to the article creating the Open Finance System, aimed at protecting users from retaliation if they do not consent to the use of their personal data. The revised wording says that refusal cannot stop administrative procedures or condition access to products or services.

The issue had been discussed in the Senate Finance Committee, where the Ministry of Economy and Finance and the Central Bank of Uruguay appeared. According to El País, National Party senator Sergio Botana raised the risk of a financial data Big Brother, while BCU secretary general Viviana Pérez Benech said the system does not create exceptions to bank secrecy.

At the same time, the legislative debate had included wording that would allow entities supervised by the BCU to share protected information covered by confidentiality or bank secrecy with parent companies, branches, subsidiaries, or other group entities inside or outside the country. That possibility raised political concern over how far secrecy protections could be lifted.

What are some lawmakers asking about personal information?

During consideration of the same bill, opposition lawmakers pushed for the open finance framework to include an absolute, personal, and non-transferable right to secrecy over personal information. The idea was meant to keep citizens from being pressured into consenting to the disclosure of their data.

The Senate Finance Committee approved the text with support from the Broad Front, the National Party, and the Colorado Party, although the opposition substitute was not ultimately included in the approved version. The outcome showed political backing for the framework, but it also kept the debate open over the scope of safeguards.

What is CUOASEC pushing on online gambling?

The Uruguayan Chamber of Operators and Agents of Entertainment and Casino Games, CUOASEC, put forward a proposal in August to legalize and regulate online gambling in Uruguay. The initiative would require state authorization for all online gambling activity and limit operations to licensed companies under regulatory supervision.

The proposal also calls for an exclusive .bet.uy domain to identify authorized operators, a National User Registry, transaction traceability, personal data protection, problem gambling prevention, anti-money laundering measures, cybersecurity requirements, self-exclusion tools, and a sanctions regime. According to Yogonet, the rules would also include restrictions on unauthorized operators.

Other coverage, such as RadarDigital.ai, said CUOASEC submitted the proposal to the executive branch and reinforced the use of the .bet.uy domain and the user registry as control and traceability tools. ACE Alliance added that the proposal does not yet appear in public legislative or regulatory records from the Uruguayan government and described it as a sector-led initiative seeking political backing and state regulation.

What does the public consultation on young people and screens include?

Parliament, AGESIC, and the UN are promoting a public consultation on the impact of social media, video games, and artificial intelligence on the lives, learning, and mental health of children and teenagers. The call is open until September 10, 2026, and a final report is due on November 30.

The initiative runs alongside the parliamentary debate on social media and minors and may provide evidence for that process. It also broadens the discussion to video games and artificial intelligence, two areas that were not at the center of the original bill but are now part of the same consultation process.

Is there a specific Uruguayan law on artificial intelligence?

As of August 2026, Uruguay does not appear to have any law in force whose specific purpose is to regulate artificial intelligence. That finding comes from a legal analysis by NotaryData on professional secrecy and AI, which says there is no dedicated legal framework for the technology in the country at that date.

The same analysis adds that sector-specific rules and general principles do apply, including those tied to personal data protection and professional liability, which are indirectly relevant to the use of AI tools in notarial work. In other words, the regulatory gap is specific, but it does not leave the technology outside any legal framework.