Artificial Intelligence & Machine Learning
,
Geo-Specific
,
Next-Generation Technologies & Secure Development
European Commission Intends to Force Meta to Open Chat App to Third Party AI

The European Commission said Meta appears to have broken antitrust law by blocking third-party AI assistants from interfacing with their users through WhatsApp.
See Also: 5 Myths of AI & Machine Learning Debunked
The commission said Monday that Meta’s actions “risks blocking competitors from entering or expanding in the rapidly growing market for AI assistants.” It intends to force the company to lift the block in Europe, as soon as Meta has had a chance to plead its case.
“We are considering interim measures to keep the market open, ensure fair access for rivals and options to users while preventing harm to competition while the investigation continues,” said Competition Commissioner Teresa Ribera in a Bluesky post. Ribera, who has taken a more aggressive stance against U.S. tech than commission President Ursula von der Leyen, has not posted on X since late 2024.
In an official statement, Ribera said Europe could not “allow dominant tech companies to illegally leverage their dominance to give themselves an unfair advantage” in the “emerging market of AI assistants.” She also said the pace of the market’s development required “swift” action – which this is, by commission standards.
The company formerly known as Facebook introduced the block against third-party AI assistants in a mid-October update to its WhatsApp Business Solution terms of service. The commission opened a probe into the matter in early December. Later that month, the Italian competition authority imposed its own interim measures against Meta. As a result, WhatsApp allows external AI assistants to communicate with users in that country, and the commission’s statement of objections on Monday excluded Italy from its scope.
Brazil’s antitrust watchdog published a similar order in mid-January. Meta won a suspension of the injunction in court, and is using that fact to argue that the commission’s objections are misguided.
“The facts are that there is no reason for the EU to intervene in the WhatsApp Business API,” said a Meta spokesperson in an emailed statement. “There are many AI options and people can use them from app stores, operating systems, devices, websites, and industry partnerships. The commission’s logic incorrectly assumes the WhatsApp Business API is a key distribution channel for these chatbots.”
Meta is also appealing the Italian injunction, the spokesperson said.
The company added its Meta AI assistant to its stable of apps, including WhatsApp, early last year. The rollout came over a year behind that in the United States, due to European data-protection regulators’ concerns about Meta training its AI on the data of hundreds of millions of Europeans who had not given their consent. Regulators, along with a German regional court, have since held that Meta can successfully claim “legitimate interests” as the legal basis for this training under the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation.
Meta said at the time of the integration that it gave existing users an “intuitive” way to access Meta AI, along with easy access to information from the web. Competition law experts said that tying Meta AI to the company’s other market-dominating products bore all the features of antitrust abuse.
This is not the first time that Meta has got into trouble with the European antitrust authorities over WhatsApp. The commission cleared the merger of Facebook and WhatsApp in 2014, after the larger company claimed that it would not match and merge users’ accounts across the two services. Facebook went on to do precisely that, leading to a fine of 110 million euros – $122 million at the time – for misleading the authorities.
In November, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission lost out in its bid to retroactively unwind Meta’s acquisitions of WhatsApp and Instagram, with a federal judge ruling that the firm does not hold a social-networking monopoly. The FTC said in late January that it will appeal that ruling.
