Skip to main content
All Watch files
DevelopingAdvertising·Fact Check·Colombia·Influencer marketing and promotional games

Coljuegos fines influencer Yeferson Cossio COP116m over Instagram promotion

Colombia's gambling authority says an unauthorised promotional game led to a fine, a five-year future ban and two remaining appeal routes.

Published 26 August 2026 · Updated 26 August 20266 minute read
By iGaming Atlas Editorial Team1 primary sourcesNext review 2 September 2026
Jump to a section

Evidence behind the story

What we checked

Primary documents

1 checked

Response record

Not requested

Last source check

26 August 2026

Next scheduled review

2 September 2026

Why this matters

The case shows how a gambling regulator can reach a promotional format distributed by a creator rather than a conventional casino site. The decisive issue in the published record is authorisation, not follower count or internet fame.

Procedural status

Administrative sanction open to challenge

Coljuegos announced the sanction on 19 August 2026 and expressly stated that reconsideration and appeal are available. Collection and the five-year restriction depend on the decision becoming enforceable.

The current picture

  • Coljuegos imposed a COP116 million administrative fine after finding that Yeferson Cossio operated and marketed an unauthorised promotional game on Instagram.
  • The authority says the amount equals 100 monthly minimum wages at the 2023 rate of COP1.16 million.
  • Reconsideration and appeal remain available, and the five-year operating restriction begins only after the decision becomes enforceable.

Confirmed by the record

  • The proceeding began with a complaint about promotional activity distributed through Instagram.
  • Coljuegos says it completed investigation, charges, defence submissions and closing arguments before the sanction.
  • The authority has requested the blocking of 437 social-media profiles connected to illegal gambling promotion or operation to date.
  • The file is to move to coercive collection only after the sanction becomes final.

Not established

  • The 19 August announcement does not say that the fine has been paid or collected.
  • The decision is not yet described as final because reconsideration and appeal routes remain.
  • The public release does not identify prize recipients, participant losses or a criminal conviction.
  • The five-year restriction is not described as a ban on social-media use or content creation generally.

Sources for each key claim

Evidence map

Each core claim is paired with the document used to substantiate it. Open the record and check our reading.

1

Coljuegos imposed a COP116 million fine over an unauthorised promotional game distributed through Instagram.

2

The five-year restriction starts after the administrative act becomes enforceable rather than on the announcement date.

3

Reconsideration and appeal remain available, and coercive collection follows only once the decision is final.

Verdict: the fine exists, but the process is not finished

Colombia's gambling authority has imposed a COP116 million fine on content creator Yeferson Esteban Cossio Castaño. Coljuegos says he was responsible for operating and marketing a promotional game to the public through Instagram without the required authorisation.

That first sentence is established by the regulator. Two common extensions are not. The authority does not say that the money has been paid, and it does not describe the decision as beyond challenge. Its own announcement lists reconsideration and appeal as available routes.

How Coljuegos calculated COP116 million

The amount is not presented as an estimate of revenue or participant loss. Coljuegos says it applied the equivalent of 100 monthly legal minimum wages using the 2023 minimum wage of COP1.16 million. Multiplying those figures produces the announced COP116 million sanction.

Keeping the basis visible prevents a misleading comparison. The figure tells readers how the regulator quantified the penalty; it does not reveal what the promotion earned, how many people took part or the value of any prizes. None of those numbers appears in the public release.

What made the Instagram activity a gambling matter

The regulator classifies the activity as a promotional game of chance directed at the public. The published issue is that the game was operated and commercialised without the corresponding authorisation. Distribution through an Instagram account did not place it outside the gambling regulator's remit.

The process began with a complaint. Coljuegos says it then moved through investigation, formal charges, defence submissions and closing arguments. That sequence matters because the announcement records an administrative proceeding, not an instant penalty issued from a social-media post alone.

The five-year restriction has a trigger

The resolution provides that Cossio may not operate games of chance for five years after the administrative act becomes enforceable. The starting point is therefore not automatically 19 August, the day Coljuegos published its release. An appeal can affect when finality arrives.

The scope also needs care. The published restriction concerns operating games of chance. It is not described as a five-year ban from Instagram, advertising generally or creating unrelated content. Broader phrasing would turn a gambling sanction into a different kind of prohibition.

Why 437 profiles are context, not this case's defendant list

Coljuegos adds that it has requested the blocking of 437 social-media profiles dedicated to illegal gambling promotion or operation. The number shows that creator-led and social distribution are a wider enforcement focus. It does not mean 437 profiles belong to Cossio or form part of this one file.

The next reliable update should come from the procedure: a reconsideration decision, an appeal result, finality or collection. Until one of those records appears, the accurate label is an imposed administrative fine that remains open to the challenge routes identified by the authority.

The practical test for creators and brands

Calling an activity a giveaway, promotion or audience reward does not decide its legal category. The relevant questions are how participation works, whether chance determines the result, what consideration or commercial purpose exists and which authorisation the jurisdiction requires. Those details belong in a pre-launch review, not in a defence assembled after a complaint.

The same discipline applies to agencies and sponsors. A large audience can increase the reach of a campaign, but it does not supply regulatory permission. Written approval, terms, eligibility and the identity of the legally responsible operator should be resolved before a post goes live.

Why the procedural label protects accuracy

Administrative enforcement can produce a real sanction before every challenge route is exhausted. Describing the fine as imposed recognises the regulator's decision. Describing it as final or collected would require another record. Both parts can be true at once: the action exists, and its procedural future remains open.

That distinction is not a technical footnote. It determines when the five-year restriction begins and when the file may move to coercive collection. The next update must therefore change the status field, not merely add another headline.

Response record

No separate response was located in the primary record used for this article. The article preserves the available appeal routes and does not state that the sanction is final or paid.

Status: not requested

Sources checked