Can the EU Force Meta to Give Rivals Access to WhatsApp?

10th Jun 2026
The European Commission has ordered Meta to restore free access to WhatsApp for rival general-purpose AI assistants while an antitrust investigation into the company's platform policies continues. Regulators concluded that temporary intervention was necessary to prevent what they described as a risk of serious and irreparable harm to competition in the growing market for AI assistants. The order follows a Commission investigation into changes made to Meta's WhatsApp Business API. According to regulators, Meta introduced a policy in October 2025 that prevented third-party AI assistants from accessing the service. Although the company later revised that approach and reopened access, the Commission's preliminary view is that the fees attached to that access may have had effects similar to the original restriction. The Commission has not reached a final conclusion that Meta breached EU competition law. Nevertheless, the decision is significant because interim measures are rarely used. They are reserved for situations where regulators believe competition could suffer lasting damage before an investigation reaches its conclusion. The investigation also raises a broader competition law issue: when can a dominant company be required to provide competitors with access to infrastructure it controls? Why the European Commission Stepped In The dispute has been developing for several months. The Commission opened its antitrust investigation in December 2025 after Meta introduced restrictions affecting AI providers other than Meta AI. In February 2026, regulators issued a Statement of Objections indicating that interim measures might be necessary. A supplementary Statement of Objections followed in April 2026, setting out the Commission's intention to require Meta to restore access while the investigation continued. The Commission's interim measures decision rests on several preliminary findings. Officials consider that Meta has, at first sight, held a dominant position in the EEA-wide market for consumer communication applications since at least January 2023 through services that include WhatsApp. They also believe there is sufficient evidence to investigate whether restrictions placed on access to the WhatsApp Business API amounted to an abuse of that position. According to the Commission, Meta's October 2025 policy effectively prevented rival general-purpose AI assistants from using WhatsApp while allowing Meta AI to remain available on the platform. Regulators characterised this as a potential refusal to provide access to infrastructure that had previously been available to third parties. On 4 March 2026, Meta revised the policy and again permitted third-party general-purpose AI assistants to access WhatsApp. The Commission nevertheless concluded that the fees imposed for that access may, at first sight, have created an effect equivalent to the earlier restriction. A key factor behind the decision was timing. The Commission argued that the market for AI assistants remains at an early stage of development and that competitive positions are still being established. If access restrictions were allowed to remain in place during a lengthy investigation, regulators feared the market could evolve in ways that would be difficult to reverse later. Meta has been ordered to restore access under the same terms and conditions that existed before 15 October 2025, including free access for competing AI assistants. The company has five working days to comply. When Does Competition Law Require Access for Rivals? The investigation falls under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which prohibits dominant companies from abusing a market position in a way that restricts competition. The Commission is also relying on Article 8(1) of Regulation 1/2003, which allows interim measures where there is a prima facie infringement and an urgent need to prevent serious and irreparable harm to competition. The legal issue is not whether Meta owns WhatsApp or whether it is entitled to operate the platform. The question is whether a dominant business can restrict access to a service that competitors may need in order to compete effectively in a related market. European competition law has grappled with similar questions for decades. Cases involving telecommunications networks, infrastructure, software platforms and digital services have often required regulators and courts to balance commercial freedom against the need to preserve competition. Businesses are generally free to decide who they deal with and how their services are offered. That freedom becomes more complicated when a company controls an important route to market and also competes against businesses seeking access to that route. The Commission's concerns arise from its preliminary view that restrictions on access to the WhatsApp Business API may affect competition in the market for AI assistants. Regulators are examining whether limiting access to a platform operated by a dominant company could distort competition in a neighbouring market. The decision is also unusual from a procedural perspective. According to the Commission, it is only the second interim measures decision adopted under Regulation 1/2003, following action taken against Broadcom in 2009. Why AI Is Creating New Antitrust Risks The Commission's concerns extend beyond the performance of AI models themselves. One issue raised during the investigation is how AI providers reach users and compete for adoption. WhatsApp is not an AI product. It is a distribution channel. The Commission's preliminary view is that restrictions on access to the platform may affect competition between AI assistants by limiting how rival providers interact with consumers. That issue has become more prominent as AI services are integrated into messaging applications, search engines, operating systems and other widely used digital products. Access to those platforms may influence whether smaller players and new entrants can challenge larger incumbents. In its interim measures decision, the Commission cited the risk of harm to competition during a period when the market for AI assistants is still developing. Regulators expressed concern that restrictions imposed at this stage could affect the competitive structure of the market before the investigation is completed. The Financial and Compliance Consequences The issues raised by the Meta investigation are not limited to technology companies. Any business that controls an important marketplace, network or digital ecosystem may face scrutiny if access conditions change in a way that affects competitors. Legal teams are therefore increasingly involved in decisions that were once viewed primarily as commercial or technical matters. The Commission has not imposed a financial penalty in this case. However, companies that fail to comply with interim measures can face significant sanctions under EU competition rules. The Commission has the power to impose fines of up to 10% of annual turnover and periodic penalty payments of up to 5% of average daily turnover to compel compliance. The investigation remains ongoing and no final finding has been made regarding whether Meta infringed Article 102 TFEU. The interim measures will remain in place while the Commission continues its examination of the case.