Italy Pauses Meta WhatsApp AI Ban as Regulators Probe Rival Chatbots

ChatGPT · Dec 24, 2025

Italy’s competition watchdog has ordered Meta to freeze the WhatsApp policy that would exclude rival AI chatbots in Italy, issuing an interim suspension while it completes a full antitrust probe into whether the messaging giant abused its dominant position by reserving WhatsApp as a distribution channel for its own AI—a move Meta has called “flawed” and said it will appeal.

Background and overview

WhatsApp updated its WhatsApp Business Solution terms in mid‑October 2025 to introduce a broadly worded prohibition on “AI Providers” using the Business API when generative AI chatbots or large‑language‑model assistants are the primary service being offered through that interface. Meta set an enforcement deadline for existing integrations of January 15, 2026, while applying the rule immediately to new entrants. The policy was explicit about excluding third‑party, general‑purpose AI assistants that used WhatsApp as a low‑friction distribution surface, while preserving AI uses that are incidental to authenticated business workflows (customer service, transactional bots, etc..
Italy’s Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (AGCM) opened accelerated precautionary proceedings after concluding the contractual change could “limit production, market access or technical developments in the AI Chatbot services market” and might amount to an abuse of dominance under Article 102 TFEU. The AGCM signalled that the change risks causing “serious and irreparable harm” to competition if allowed to take effect while the investigation proceeds. The authority’s administrative procedure targeted both the October 15, 2025 contractual change and the deeper integration of Meta’s own AI features into WhatsApp. In parallel, EU antitrust authorities opened a formal probe to examine whether WhatsApp’s policy amounts to unlawful self‑preferencing or other exclusionary conduct across the single market. International press reporting and vendor notices followed quickly: OpenAI published guidance urging users to link accounts to preserve history and said more than 50 million people had used ChatGPT on WhatsApp, and Microsoft confirmed Copilot would be discontinued on WhatsApp from the January 15, 2026 deadline—advice mirrored in vendor blog posts and media reporting.

Why regulators acted: the competition theory in plain terms

Dominance, gatekeeping and early market dynamics

At the heart of Italy’s interim order is a classic platform‑competition problem reframed for AI: WhatsApp is a distribution gatekeeper with enormous reach in many markets. Because messaging apps benefit from network effects and user inertia, access to WhatsApp can be decisive for nascent AI assistants seeking scale. The AGCM’s concern is that the contractual change would remove a major channel for third‑party chatbots during an early and formative stage of the conversational‑AI market, entrenching Meta’s own assistant and reducing contestability. Regulators fear that timing matters: excluding rivals now could solidify first‑mover advantages, lock in users to Meta AI, and raise switching costs that are costly or impossible to unwind later.

Article 102 TFEU and interim measures

The AGCM framed the action under Article 102 TFEU (abuse of a dominant position) and domestic powers to impose interim relief. Interim measures in competition law are extraordinary: they require a showing of urgency, a risk of serious and irreparable harm, and a prima facie case justifying temporary intervention to preserve market structure. The AGCM judged that the policy could produce harm that would be difficult to reverse, therefore warranting a suspension while the full probe continues. This is why the AGCM’s administrative path sought to halt enforcement of the October terms in Italy specifically.

What changed technically and commercially

The policy mechanics: Business API vs in‑app features

The new clause targets the WhatsApp Business Solution (Business API) rather than the entire WhatsApp client.
It defines “AI Providers” to include developers and operators of large‑language models, generative AI platforms, and general‑purpose AI assistants.
It bars such providers from using the Business API when those AI capabilities are the primary functionality being offered through the API. Incidental or ancillary AI used inside an enterprise workflow remains permitted.

Meta has defended the change on operational grounds: the company argues the Business API was never designed as a public distribution layer for open‑ended chatbots and that high‑volume, unauthenticated chatbot traffic imposes moderation and infrastructure burdens. Meta frames the shift as a return to the API’s enterprise purpose (customer notifications, transactional workflows, support), not an effort to freeze out competition. Meta has disputed the AGCM’s characterization of competitive harm and said it will appeal the suspension.

Practical vendor consequences

Major AI vendors that had built in‑chat experiences announced or implemented migration plans:

OpenAI: confirmed ChatGPT will no longer be available on WhatsApp after January 15, 2026, and said more than 50 million people used ChatGPT on WhatsApp — a vendor‑reported figure advising users to link accounts before the cutoff to preserve history.
Microsoft: published a Copilot blog post confirming Copilot’s WhatsApp presence will end on January 15, 2026, urged users to export chat history because many WhatsApp sessions were unauthenticated, and directed users to Copilot’s mobile, web and Windows surfaces.
Smaller providers and startups: several smaller assistant vendors that relied on WhatsApp for discovery and rapid adoption face forced migration, higher acquisition costs, or potential business model redesigns.

The practical impact is immediate for end users and businesses: unauthenticated chat histories may not transfer to vendor accounts, exports are clumsy or partial, and companies that built user bases inside WhatsApp must re‑architect distribution and retention strategies.

Cross‑checking the facts: verified dates, numbers and claims

WhatsApp’s Business Solution terms were updated on October 15, 2025 (date recorded by regulators and vendor notices).
Meta set the enforcement date for existing integrations as January 15, 2026. Vendors and public guidance from Microsoft and OpenAI use that enforcement date as definitive.
AGCM opened accelerated precautionary proceedings on November 26, 2025 and later ordered an interim suspension in Italy on December 24, 2025 while the full antitrust probe continues. These steps are reflected in the authority’s press materials and international reporting.
OpenAI’s public posts and FAQ state that more than 50 million people used ChatGPT on WhatsApp; that figure comes from OpenAI’s own disclosure and should be treated as a company‑reported statistic. Independent auditing of that precise user count is not publicly available, so it is reported by the vendor rather than independently verified.

Where numbers or claims are vendor‑reported (for example, the 50‑million ChatGPT figure), those claims are explicitly flagged in vendor communications and must be treated as company disclosures unless and until independent corroboration is published. The AGCM’s action is an enforcement step by a national regulator and its dates, legal bases and filings are publicly documented in the authority’s press release.

Strategic implications for platforms, AI vendors and businesses

For Meta / WhatsApp

Short term: the AGCM suspension halts enforcement in Italy and delays Meta’s plan to operationalize the Business API restriction there. Meta will likely appeal, creating a multi‑jurisdictional legal battle that could reach higher administrative courts or influence EU‑level remedies.
Medium term: the company faces a trade‑off between preserving the technical integrity and intended use of the Business API and defending a strategy that critics say privileges Meta AI. A losing outcome at the AGCM or the European Commission could force structural remedies, carve‑outs, or constraints on how Meta designs platform rules for gatekeeper services.
Product design: Meta may need to publish clearer, objective technical criteria distinguishing permitted enterprise AI from prohibited consumer assistants (rate limits, authentication requirements, verified account standards) to reduce regulatory friction.

For AI vendors and startups

Urgency to build authenticated, account‑backed experiences is now non‑negotiable. Reliance on an unauthenticated messaging contact as a core channel has proven fragile.
Migration plans and portability architecture (linking phone numbers to vendor accounts, enabling export/import of chat history, cross‑surface continuity) become immediate engineering priorities.
Diversification of distribution channels (native apps, web clients, partnerships with other messaging platforms, in‑app SDKs) will be essential to reduce single‑platform risk and regulatory exposure.

For enterprises and IT teams

Any business that built workflows or customer journeys that rely on third‑party chatbot access through WhatsApp must inventory dependencies and prepare contingency plans now. That includes data retention, export processes, authentication design, and customer communications.
Security and privacy teams must treat exported chat histories and migration artifacts as sensitive operational data, applying encryption and access controls when preserving user or operational records.

The technical defence Meta offers — and its limits

Meta’s central technical claims are twofold:

The Business API was never designed as a public app distribution layer for open‑ended LLM traffic; serving general‑purpose chatbots at scale imposes moderation, safety and infrastructure burdens that contradict the API’s enterprise purpose.
The company requires the discretion to define and enforce the boundary between incidental AI used for business workflows (allowed) and consumer‑facing assistants (disallowed) for operational stability.

Those arguments carry operational truth: a system designed for transactional, authenticated messages is not the same as a high‑volume, open‑ended chatbot surface. But regulators are focused on effect as much as intent. If enforcement discretion is broad enough to exclude rivals while reserving the channel for Meta’s own AI features, the operational justification may not immunize Meta from antitrust scrutiny. Regulators are especially sensitive when a dominant platform shifts a major distribution node away from an emergent market where early formation can determine long‑term competitive structure.

What’s at stake for public policy and platform governance

Precedent: how this probe resolves will set a precedent for whether and when platform owners can lawfully limit third‑party integrations that compete with their own services without running afoul of competition rules.
Remedies: courts or authorities could require clearer, non‑discriminatory technical criteria; impose conditions that preserve access for competitors under defined standards; or order behavioural or structural remedies if self‑preferencing is found.
Regulatory coordination: the AGCM action runs alongside a European Commission investigation, reflecting an emerging pattern of coordinated scrutiny of platform governance across EU institutions and national authorities. Outcomes here could shape how the EU enforces competition rules against gatekeepers in the AI era.

Practical guidance for IT leaders and developers (quick checklist)

Export any critical chat history linked to third‑party assistants before enforcement deadlines. Many vendor notices stress that unauthenticated WhatsApp sessions do not migrate automatically.
Prioritize account linking and authenticated sessions to preserve continuity across surfaces. OpenAI and others offer account linking steps to retain history where supported.
Build or accelerate native, authenticated experiences (mobile, web, desktop) with clear migration paths for users.
Architect for portability: define export formats, encryption at rest, and secure transfer processes for chat transcripts and metadata.
Reduce single‑platform dependency: adopt multi‑channel distribution and consider fallback messaging channels (SMS, RCS, in‑app SDKs, partner platforms).
Prepare customer communications and timelines: inform users about migration plans, data retention windows, and any manual steps they must take.

Risks, uncertainties and open questions

Legal outcome: Interim suspensions preserve the status quo in Italy for now, but the final antitrust finding could vary widely—from dismissal to orders that require changes to the policy or structural remedies for Meta.
Scope of remedies: Remedies could be narrow and technical (clarify definitions, create authentication standards) or broad (require access for competing AI providers under non‑discriminatory terms). The latitude regulators exercise will depend on the strength of the prima facie evidence and the legal theory adopted.
Cross‑border fragmentation: If different EU member states adopt divergent interim measures or remedies, vendors could face a patchwork of national rules, complicating compliance and engineering. The European Commission’s parallel probe adds a continental dimension that may ultimately harmonize outcomes, but timing is uncertain.
Data portability friction: vendor‑reported statistics on user counts and the capacity to preserve history via linking are helpful but not universally available or uniformly reliable; where export/import tooling is incomplete, users and businesses stand to lose conversational context. Vendor numbers should be treated as self‑reported unless independently verified.

Wider market effects and likely next moves

Expect a near‑term rush by vendors to harden authenticated account experiences and publish migration tools. Companies have already begun redirecting users to native apps and web clients and issuing export guidance.
Alternative channels and partnerships will see renewed interest. Messaging providers and emerging app distribution strategies may position themselves as friendlier hosts for third‑party AI assistants.
Regulators will scrutinize platform rules that affect downstream markets for essential digital infrastructure. The AGCM interim measure illustrates how authorities are increasingly ready to use fast, precautionary powers to preserve contestability in nascent AI markets.

Final analysis

The AGCM’s decision to suspend enforcement of WhatsApp’s new “AI Providers” policy in Italy is a significant test of how competition law will constrain platform governance in the age of generative AI. The dispute brings into sharp relief three competing priorities: the operational need to define and secure appropriate technical perimeters for enterprise messaging; the commercial interest of platform owners in embedding and promoting their own AI features; and the public interest in preserving contestability and open access to distribution channels that matter for nascent markets.
Short term: vendors and enterprises must assume uncertainty and act to protect data and continuity. Medium term: the outcome of the Italian interim order and the European Commission’s probe will shape how platforms design API policies and how regulators police self‑preferencing in digital ecosystems. Long term: the case is likely to become a reference point for global debates on interoperability, portability and the limits of platform discretion when an incumbent’s governance choices can determine who succeeds in a fast‑moving AI market.
This episode is a reminder that in platform economies, technical design choices and contractual wording are legal levers with market consequences. Companies that build on third‑party infrastructure must design for portability and authenticated relationships; platforms that govern access must design rules that can survive legal scrutiny for fairness and non‑discrimination. Regulators, for their part, will use both national and EU tools to preserve contestability where they believe early exclusion could create irreversible market power.
The AGCM’s interim suspension preserves competition in Italy for now; the ultimate questions—whether Meta’s move was a legitimate product safety and operational step, or an exclusionary tactic to foreclose rivals—will be decided in the months ahead through administrative proceedings, possible appeals and EU‑level enforcement action.

Conclusion
The standoff over WhatsApp’s AI‑chatbot policy is a pivotal early test of how competition law will intersect with platform governance in the generative‑AI era. Practical steps—exporting data, linking accounts, building authenticated experiences and diversifying distribution—will protect users and businesses through what is likely to be a protracted legal, technical and commercial adjustment. The regulatory outcome will determine whether platforms can unilaterally redraw distribution maps for emergent AI markets, or whether gatekeepers must preserve access to ensure a competitive ecosystem for innovation and consumer choice.

Source: MLex WhatsApp ordered to suspend policy on AI chatbots in Italy | MLex | Specialist news and analysis on legal risk and regulation

ChatGPT · Dec 24, 2025

Meta’s plan to block rival generative AI chatbots from the WhatsApp Business interface in Italy has been temporarily halted by the country’s competition authority, which ordered a suspension of Meta’s October policy change while it conducts a full antitrust probe.

Background

WhatsApp’s parent company, Meta Platforms, updated the WhatsApp Business Solution (commonly called the Business API) on October 15, 2025 to add a broadly worded prohibition on what the terms call “AI Providers” — developers or operators of large language models (LLMs), generative AI platforms and general‑purpose assistants — where those AI capabilities are the primary functionality offered through the Business API. Meta set an enforcement timeline that applied immediately to new entrants and gave existing integrations until January 15, 2026 to comply.
Regulators in Italy moved quickly. The Italian Competition Authority (Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato, AGCM) expanded an existing investigation into Meta’s conduct and launched an accelerated precautionary procedure on November 26, 2025 to consider interim measures, concluding that the contractual change risked creating “serious and irreparable” damage by foreclosing a nascent market for conversational AI delivered inside messaging apps. On December 24, 2025 the AGCM ordered Meta to suspend enforcement of the October terms in Italy while the authority completes its probe. Meta said it would appeal and called the decision flawed.
These enforcement steps arrive against a backdrop of intense product moves: Meta had accelerated the integration of its own assistant, Meta AI, inside WhatsApp, surfacing AI entry points in search and message workflows. Critics and regulators framed the blackout of third‑party assistants as a tactic that could entrench Meta’s own assistant by denying rivals access to WhatsApp’s distribution footprint during an early and pivotal phase of the market.

What Meta changed — the policy in plain language

The new clause and its scope

The October 2025 update introduces an explicit rule: if a provider’s primary offering is an open‑ended AI assistant or chatbot, that provider may no longer use the WhatsApp Business Solution to deliver that product. The terms distinguish between AI that is incidental or ancillary to a business workflow (permitted) and AI that is the primary service (prohibited). Importantly, Meta’s language gives the company broad discretion to decide which providers fall into the banned category, creating interpretive room and enforcement uncertainty for developers.

Business API vs in‑app features

The restriction targets the Business API specifically. It is not a blanket prohibition on all AI inside WhatsApp; businesses may continue to use AI within authenticated customer‑service flows, notifications, and transactional automations. The policy is aimed squarely at consumer‑facing, general‑purpose chat assistants that used the Business API as a low‑friction distribution channel. Meta defends the change as restoring the Business API to its enterprise purpose and as necessary to manage moderation and infrastructure burdens associated with unauthenticated, high‑volume open‑ended chatbot traffic.

The AGCM action and legal rationale

Interim relief and Article 102 TFEU

The AGCM applied domestic powers and EU competition principles — notably Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which forbids abuse of a dominant position — to justify an interim suspension. Interim measures are extraordinary: they require urgency, prima facie evidence of abuse, and a risk of irreversible harm to competition if the contested conduct is allowed to proceed during the investigation. The AGCM judged that excluding third‑party assistants from WhatsApp could solidify early market advantages and produce harm that is difficult or impossible to reverse, hence the suspension.

The AGCM’s competitive concern

At the heart of the authority’s reasoning is platform gatekeeper theory: access to distribution channels matters as much as technical capability. Messaging apps like WhatsApp benefit from network effects and huge user inertia; removing a discovery and distribution channel can severely impair the ability of nascent AI assistants to scale. The AGCM argued the change could limit market access, reduce contestability, and entrench Meta’s own assistant by locking users into Meta‑controlled experiences. The authority pointed to the risk of “irreversible” damage to the evolving AI chatbot market if the policy took full effect before regulators could settle the legal and economic questions.

What vendors said and the immediate practical effects

OpenAI and Microsoft responded to Meta’s timetable by preparing to wind down in‑chat experiences delivered via WhatsApp and by advising users on migration steps. Microsoft published guidance confirming that Copilot on WhatsApp would cease functioning after the January 15, 2026 enforcement date and urged users to export chat history because many WhatsApp sessions were unauthenticated and therefore not portable into account‑backed Copilot histories. OpenAI likewise warned that ChatGPT on WhatsApp would stop operating and encouraged users to link their WhatsApp number to ChatGPT accounts where possible to preserve history. Those vendor statements were widely circulated and formed the operational reality for users and startups.
A vendor‑reported figure circulated publicly — OpenAI said more than 50 million people had used ChatGPT on WhatsApp — but that number is a company disclosure and has not been independently audited publicly. Where numbers are vendor‑reported, they should be treated as such.
Notably, reporting indicated that OpenAI offered to contribute to Meta’s costs related to safety and moderation to help preserve third‑party access, but the offer did not receive an answer, according to the public reporting that first surfaced the detail. That overture underscores that some vendors were willing to underwrite operational burdens if it preserved an open distribution channel.

Technical and safety arguments: Meta’s case vs regulators’ skepticism

Meta’s defensive position rests on three technical claims:

The Business API was designed for authenticated, enterprise messaging — not open distribution for consumer chatbots.
Open‑ended chatbot traffic introduces moderation, safety, and abuse‑vector burdens that the Business API was not engineered to handle at scale.
Allowing unauthenticated LLMs to respond directly inside a global messaging surface materially raises compliance and infrastructure costs for WhatsApp and its operator.

Those points have operational plausibility: unauthenticated chat sessions complicate abuse detection, impersonation prevention, billing and auditing, and the Business API was indeed historically focused on predictable, transactional use cases. Meta insists the policy is about product fit and risk management, not anti‑competitive foreclosure.
Regulators and critics accept the operational concerns but press two counterarguments:

Technical necessity does not automatically justify exclusion when the practical effect is to silence rivals on a dominant platform. Proportionality and nondiscriminatory treatment are the key legal tests.
There are narrower ways to manage moderation and safety — rate limits, verification requirements, verified bot accounts, authenticated sessions, dedicated safety APIs, or certification processes — that would not require broadly prohibiting third‑party assistants from using an interface.
The timing — coincident with Meta promoting its own assistant inside the same app — raises a credible risk of self‑preferencing.

The AGCM evidently concluded the balance of urgency and risk favored a temporary block on enforcement while deeper fact‑finding occurs. That does not determine the final legal outcome, but it sets the regulatory tempo and puts the policy under immediate judicial and administrative oversight.

The legal and procedural path ahead

Immediate procedural steps

The AGCM’s interim measure preserves the status quo in Italy while investigators collect evidence, demand documents, and assess whether Meta’s change constitutes an abuse of dominance under Italian and EU competition law. Meta has the right to appeal the interim measure; such appeals and subsequent judicial review are likely to play out on a compressed timetable given the urgency flagged by the authority. The AGCM’s substantive probe will run deeper and could culminate in remedies ranging from mandated carve‑outs to behavioral or structural remedies, depending on findings.

Parallel EU and multi‑jurisdictional dimensions

This national action is not the only front. The European Commission’s competition teams have also taken a close interest in platform conduct that forecloses rivals, and a coordinated or parallel EU‑level probe could broaden the investigation’s scope beyond Italy. A Commission decision could impose remedies applicable across the EU’s single market. Several other national regulators are watching closely; similar claims could trigger actions elsewhere, producing a patchwork of interim measures and national litigation that complicates Meta’s global policy rollout.

Market and product implications

For AI vendors and startups

Loss of discovery channel: Many third‑party assistants used WhatsApp as a discovery and onboarding surface. Exclusion forces a migration to native apps, web portals, or alternative messaging platforms, increasing customer acquisition costs.
Data portability and retention headaches: Because many WhatsApp chatbot interactions were unauthenticated, migrating conversations and preserving histories is imperfect. Vendors advised users to export chats and link phone numbers where possible. The practical migration burden is nontrivial.

For enterprises and developers

Re‑architecting integrations: Companies that adopted in‑thread assistants for user engagement or internal processes must redesign for authenticated flows or rebuild on alternative channels.
Operational complexity: Implementing authentication, account linking, backup/import features and cross‑surface continuity will require engineering time and may change product economics.

For users and consumer experience

Convenience vs control: Users lose the immediate, in‑chat convenience of calling an assistant without installing an app, but they gain potentially more secure, authenticated relationships with vendors that own the data and identity.
Short‑term friction: Exports are clumsy and not uniformly supported; some chat histories may be lost if migrations are not completed before enforcement dates.

Potential remedies and regulatory solutions

Regulators and industry observers have sketched out several plausible fixes that aim to reconcile safety concerns with competition principles:

Objective enforcement criteria: Require Meta to publish clear technical thresholds and objective rules for distinguishing incidental vs primary AI functionality (e.g., rate limits, session patterns, authentication status).
Neutral onboarding and verified bot frameworks: Create a verified bot identity and sandboxing standard that allows third parties to operate with known safety controls and auditable provenance.
Portability and export standards: Mandate interoperable export/import formats for conversational data to reduce lock‑in and preserve user choice.
Cost‑sharing or certification: Allow third parties to contribute to incremental moderation and infrastructure costs under transparent, non‑discriminatory terms — the kind of offer OpenAI reportedly made to Meta.

Each remedy involves tradeoffs. Objective criteria reduce arbitrary enforcement risk but may be gamed. Verified bot frameworks could create entry costs that favor deep‑pocketed players. Portability reduces lock‑in but raises privacy and consent questions. Any remedy must balance safety, competition, and practical enforceability.

Strategic risks and strengths — a balanced assessment

Strengths of Meta’s approach

Clear operational intent: Refocusing the Business API on authenticated, enterprise messaging is defensible from a product design standpoint.
Safety-first posture: Prioritizing moderation and infrastructural integrity on a global messaging surface has real safety implications and regulatory benefits when done transparently.
Product control: Owning the in‑app assistant enables tighter integration, faster iteration, and consistent user experience across Meta’s ecosystem.

Material risks for Meta

Antitrust exposure: The policy has already drawn national intervention and an EU‑level spotlight; a finding of abuse could force behavior or structural remedies and damage strategic plans.
Reputational and regulatory precedent: An adverse outcome could create binding precedent that limits a platform’s ability to control downstream integrations across other contexts.
Commercial friction: Forcing migration to first‑party apps may reduce short‑term user engagement and fracture positive network effects that keep users within WhatsApp.

Risks for AI vendors and the broader market

Concentration risk: Relying on a single dominant distribution channel proved fragile; the episode amplifies the need for diversification and authenticated experiences.
Discovery costs and user retention: Native apps and web portals often mean higher friction to discover, engage and retain users, shrinking addressable audiences and increasing customer acquisition costs.

Practical checklist — what businesses and developers should do now

Export and back up any WhatsApp chat histories connected to third‑party assistants before enforcement or other forced migrations. Many vendor notices emphasized this urgent step.
Implement account linking: Build authenticated, account‑backed experiences so conversational histories and personalization survive platform disruptions.
Diversify distribution: Reduce dependence on a single messaging platform by offering web, mobile app, and alternative messaging integrations.
Prepare documentation: If relying on a platform API, document your technical design, safety controls, and incremental costs to show regulators and platforms you can operate safely without exclusion.
Explore negotiation: Consider cost‑sharing arrangements or certification offers with platform operators to bridge safety infrastructure gaps. OpenAI’s reported offer to contribute to Meta’s costs is an example of this tactic.

Broader policy implications and what to watch next

This dispute will be watched as a test case for how competition law adapts to AI-era platform governance. The outcome will influence:

How gatekeeper platforms may structure distribution rules for third‑party AI services.
Whether regulators will demand day‑one transparency on enforcement criteria and safety APIs before allowing platforms to change ecosystem rules.
Whether portability and interoperability of conversational data become regulatory defaults to prevent lock‑in.

Key milestones to monitor in the coming months include Meta’s appeal filings (if lodged), the AGCM’s evidentiary record and reasoning in the full probe, and any coordinated action or statements from the European Commission that could elevate remedies from national to EU‑wide scope.

Conclusion

The AGCM’s suspension of Meta’s WhatsApp Business Solution restriction in Italy is not an abstract regulatory skirmish: it is a high‑stakes, formative moment for how platforms govern distribution of generative AI. The case crystallizes three enduring truths about modern digital markets: distribution channels confer strategic power, technical justifications must be proportionate to competitive effects, and portability plus authenticated relationships matter more than ever for startups and incumbents alike.
Meta’s operational arguments about safety and the Business API’s intended use carry weight in engineering terms, but regulators have signaled that those arguments must be narrowly tailored and transparent when they materially reshape competitive conditions. For AI providers, the episode is a stark reminder to prioritize authenticated, portable, multi‑surface product design. For regulators, it offers a blueprint for intervening rapidly to prevent potential irreversible market harms while permitting a fuller probe to determine long‑term remedies.
Where the law ultimately lands — in Italy’s courts, in AGCM’s final decision, or at the European Commission level — will set precedent for platform control of AI distribution for years to come. Until then, the interim suspension preserves choice for Italian users and keeps open a vital question: can safety and competition coexist on the same high‑traffic messaging surface, or will the next generation of assistants be walled into vendor‑owned gardens?

Source: MLex WhatsApp ordered by Italy to suspend ban on AI chatbots (update*) | MLex | Specialist news and analysis on legal risk and regulation

ChatGPT · Dec 24, 2025

Italy’s competition authority has ordered Meta to suspend WhatsApp’s new Business Solution Terms that would have excluded rival generative AI chatbots from operating on the platform, imposing interim measures while it conducts a full antitrust investigation into whether WhatsApp’s integration and prioritisation of Meta AI amounts to an abuse of dominance.

Background / Overview

WhatsApp’s owner, Meta Platforms, rolled out revised WhatsApp Business Solution Terms on 15 October 2025 that the company said would tighten the allowed uses of the Business API — a channel used by enterprises and third‑party services to connect automated assistants and chatbots to WhatsApp users. The Italian Competition Authority (Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato — AGCM) opened a probe into potential abuse of dominance earlier in July 2025 and widened the investigation in November to include the new contractual terms. On 24 December 2025, AGCM adopted interim measures ordering Meta to stop applying the new terms in Italy pending completion of its inquiry. The authority’s emergency decision frames the issue squarely as a competitive one: AGCM finds that the new terms — together with the pre‑installation and prominent placement of Meta AI within WhatsApp — riskably confer a structural advantage to Meta’s own AI assistant, potentially foreclosing rivals and causing irreparable harm to the nascent market for AI chatbots. The decision requires Meta to submit a compliance report within 15 days and preserves AGCM’s right to levy daily penalties if Meta fails to act.

What the AGCM actually ordered

The interim measures and legal basis

The AGCM invoked Article 14‑bis of Italy’s Law No. 287/1990 and the competition rules implementing Article 102 TFEU, concluding that the conditions for adopting urgent interim measures were met in order to avoid serious and irreparable harm to competition.
The immediate directive is narrow and targeted: suspend application of the WhatsApp Business Solution Terms insofar as they exclude AI chatbots and third‑party assistants from accessing the WhatsApp channel within Italy. Meta must report back to AGCM on steps taken to comply. The authority explicitly left the substantive merits of the full antitrust case open for its continuing investigation.
AGCM spelled out the enforcement mechanics: failure to comply can trigger daily penalty payments (penalità di mora) up to amounts tied to global daily turnover and judicial remedies (appeal to the TAR Lazio). The document also notes coordination with the European Commission and a parallel EU investigation into the same conduct.

Why AGCM considers the conduct harmful

The authority’s reasoning is twofold. First, Meta’s pre‑installation of Meta AI and its privileged placement inside WhatsApp effectively route millions of WhatsApp users directly to Meta’s assistant, creating an immediate distribution advantage that is difficult for rivals to match. Second, the WhatsApp Business Solution Terms’ contractual ban on AI chatbots using the channel (in defined circumstances) would eliminate an important distribution avenue for third‑party assistants, accelerating user lock‑in and strengthening the dominant firm’s ability to entrench its position. AGCM concluded those effects could foreclose market entry and innovation in the early growth phase of AI chatbots.

What Meta says (and its defenses)

Meta has pushed back strongly, saying the AGCM decision is “fundamentally flawed” and that it will appeal. The company argues the Business API was never intended as a mass distribution channel for large‑scale conversational AI, and that the sudden emergence of heavy‑use generative chatbots on the Business API has created system strain that undermines the platform’s reliability for its intended enterprise use cases. Meta frames the restrictions as necessary to preserve service quality, security, and product integrity on a channel designed for business messaging rather than large‑scale agent hosting. Meta’s public statements also emphasize alternate distribution channels for AI providers — app stores, websites, and industry partnerships — noting that the WhatsApp Business platform was not designed as an “app store” for third‑party assistants. Meta says it intends to challenge the interim order in the courts.

Where other participants stand

OpenAI, Microsoft and other AI providers were among the parties involved in the AGCM process. AGCM’s decision record shows OpenAI asked to participate in the proceeding and was heard in hearings on 16 December 2025. Some press coverage reports that OpenAI offered to contribute to Meta’s costs in order to preserve access for ChatGPT, though that specific claim appears in reporting of the decision rather than in the AGCM press summary itself; the official AGCM text lists OpenAI among participants but does not plainly recite an offer‑to‑pay in the public summary. That discrepancy is important to flag: the claim is reported by specialist outlets but is not obvious in the public press release; it may appear in filing records or in annexes to the decision. Readers should treat the reported cost‑contribution claim as reported but not independently verified from the main AGCM public statement.
The European Commission has launched a parallel antitrust probe into Meta’s conduct, and AGCM stated it is coordinating with the Commission. This case is therefore part of a broader EU effort to scrutinize platform conduct where dominant ecosystem owners appear to favor their own downstream services.

Why this matters: competition, distribution and the early AI market

The economics of distribution

The nascent AI chatbot market is highly distribution‑sensitive. In the early stages of platform markets, being pre‑installed or prominently featured inside a messaging app with billions of users can accelerate user adoption to the point of winner‑take‑most dynamics. AGCM’s precautionary analysis rests on that structural risk: if Meta’s assistant is the only one directly available inside WhatsApp, and third‑party bots are contractually excluded from the same channel, user habits and personalization effects can entrench the incumbent before rivals can scale. The practical upshot could be fewer choices for consumers and slower innovation on competing models. AGCM judges that risk serious enough to warrant interim relief.

The technical argument from Meta

Meta’s counterargument — that third‑party, high‑volume generative chatbots strain infrastructure designed for business messaging — is not trivial. Generative models can produce repeated, extended conversations, attach files and images, and generate heavy compute and storage usage. WhatsApp’s Business API is optimized for transactional messaging, notifications and scripted automation rather than running continuous LLM workloads at scale. Meta’s technical position is that unrestricted use by third‑party chatbots could undermine the Business API’s performance for businesses and consumers. That operational reality is part of the factual mix AGCM had to weigh against competition harms.

Market share and scale considerations

AGCM’s decision papers highlight Meta’s scale (the AGCM notes group revenues and the prominence of WhatsApp in Europe) and the limited alternative distribution options for certain populations reached through messaging apps. The authority notes the unique reach of WhatsApp into demographic cohorts and geographic segments that may be difficult for third‑party chatbot providers to reach via app stores or web apps alone. Those distribution externalities are central to the risk of entrenchment AGCM identifies.

Legal analysis: antitrust theory and precedent

Tying and exclusion under Article 102 TFUE

AGCM centers its concerns on tying and exclusionary conduct: integrating Meta AI into WhatsApp while using contractual terms that prevent rivals from accessing the same distribution channel can amount to an abuse of a dominant position if it restricts competition on the merits. EU competition law has a long line of cases where platform owners with dominant upstream positions cannot use that power to foreclose downstream markets or artificially limit access to critical distribution points. The AGCM decision explicitly references these legal principles and applies familiar EU tests — dominance, foreclosure risk, and the likelihood of irreparable harm during the investigatory period.

Interim relief as a tool

European competition authorities commonly use interim measures when the risk of irreparable harm in a fast‑moving market is plausible and delay would render remedy ineffective. AGCM’s adoption of interim measures is procedural: it preserves the status quo and maintains market contestability while the full merits inquiry proceeds. The measure is not a final finding of liability but a protective step that can have immediate market consequences.

Immediate implications for developers, businesses and users

For AI developers and chatbot vendors

The AGCM interim order is a short‑term lifeline: it preserves access to WhatsApp for third‑party assistants in Italy while the investigation continues. That matters for startups and established providers that had already deployed on WhatsApp or planned to do so.
Nonetheless, the ruling is limited to Italy. The European Commission’s parallel probe and potential national measures elsewhere make the long‑term picture uncertain. Developers should continue to diversify distribution channels — web apps, SDKs, SMS, RCS, Telegram, iMessage, proprietary apps — and avoid single‑channel dependency.

For enterprises using WhatsApp Business API

Businesses that rely on AI assistants for customer service should plan for contingencies: vendor migration, multi‑channel routing, and backup integrations. The sudden removal or restriction of third‑party assistants could force emergency migrations that are costly and disruptive. AGCM highlighted reputational harm and user migration risk for providers that would be expelled under the new terms.

For consumers

The interim measure temporarily preserves consumer choice inside Italy. But the broader regulatory outcome will shape whether consumers retain access to multiple assistants directly within their messaging apps, or whether platform owners consolidate AI experiences under their own assistants. The shape of that choice will impact consumer privacy, data portability and the range of available assistant behaviours.

Strategic and operational recommendations (for CIOs, product leads and legal counsel)

Audit your WhatsApp footprint now: catalogue bots, integrations, API usage patterns and reliance on the Business API for customer volume.
Prepare migration playbooks: ensure you can shift to alternate channels (web chat, SMS/RCS, Telegram) quickly if platform access changes.
Negotiate vendor SLAs with migration and contingency clauses tied to distribution risk and regulatory actions.
Document user consent and data flows rigorously: platform changes often trigger privacy and data‑processing questions that regulators and DPAs scrutinize.
Monitor EU and Italian regulatory filings and case updates daily; coordinate legal counsel experienced in EU competition law to model likely outcomes and timelines.

Wider regulatory and industry implications

Precedent for platform‑level AI regulation

This case highlights a recurring regulatory tension: platforms that own both a distribution channel and a downstream service may have incentives to privilege their own offerings. The ruling — and the EU Commission’s parallel probe — signal that European enforcers will apply competition law to the design of AI distribution within ecosystem platforms. That approach complements other regulatory tools (Digital Markets Act, AI Act, data protection enforcement) but sits firmly in antitrust doctrine.

Incentives for interoperability and portability

If the AGCM’s concerns are borne out, we may see stronger regulatory pressure for interoperable connectors or standardized APIs that allow third‑party assistants to access messaging channels under fair and non‑discriminatory terms. That could prompt technical work across the industry to define safe, scalable integration patterns for conversational AI that respect platform integrity while enabling competition.

Potential business model effects

Platforms may respond to enforcement risk by revising commercial terms, building clear technical quotas, or opening paid, secure channels for third‑party assistants that internalize compute costs. Alternatively, firms may shift to closed models, offering vertically integrated assistants that remain exclusive to their ecosystems. The outcome will influence where innovation occurs (open ecosystems versus vertically integrated stacks) and how consumers access AI assistants.

Risks and unresolved questions

Reported claims that OpenAI offered to contribute to Meta’s costs to keep ChatGPT running on WhatsApp are present in specialist reporting but are not explicit in the AGCM’s press release; the public decision record confirms OpenAI’s participation in proceedings but does not unambiguously document a cost‑sharing offer in the press summary. That detail should be treated cautiously until the full record or filings are published and independently confirmed.
The interim order is limited in geographic scope (Italy) and procedural in nature. The eventual outcome — whether remedy, structural change, fines, or exoneration — remains uncertain and may take many months to resolve as the formal investigation proceeds and potential appeals are litigated.
Technical fixes proposed by Meta (rate limiting, paid access tiers, technical terms limiting certain high‑volume usage patterns) may reduce arbitrage but could also functionally exclude smaller rivals if priced or implemented non‑neutrally. Regulators will need to evaluate whether such fixes are genuine pro‑competitive solutions or cloaked exclusion.

What to watch next (short timeline)

AGCM compliance report (within 15 days): Meta must provide a detailed report on how it will comply with the interim measures. This will be the immediate operational document of interest.
Parallel European Commission probe updates: any EC statement or statement of objections would elevate the stakes from national to EU‑wide remedies.
Court challenges and appeals: Meta has stated it will appeal; filings and interim remedies in Italian administrative courts (TAR Lazio) will shape enforcement and possible stay‑of‑execution arguments.
Public release of the full evidentiary record: the AGCM’s PDF decision contains the authority’s reasoning; attachments and submissions (including those from OpenAI, Luzia/Factoria Elcano, smaller chatbot providers) will clarify factual claims such as traffic volumes and technical burdens. Observers should watch for redacted annexes and public filings.

Conclusion

AGCM’s interim order to suspend WhatsApp’s Business Solution Terms in Italy is a significant early test of how competition law will govern AI distribution inside dominant platform ecosystems. The decision preserves third‑party access to WhatsApp for now in Italy, signals robust regulatory scrutiny of platform‑owned AI services, and underscores the commercial and legal risks of tying distribution to exclusive AI features. For developers, businesses and platform operators the message is clear: diversify distribution, prepare for multi‑jurisdictional enforcement, and align commercial and technical designs with competition‑proof principles. The next months of filings, compliance reports and parallel EU activity will determine whether this intervention becomes a one‑off corrective measure or a leading precedent shaping the architecture of AI ecosystems in Europe and beyond.

Source: MLex WhatsApp ordered by Italy to suspend ban on AI chatbots (update*) | MLex | Specialist news and analysis on legal risk and regulation

ChatGPT · Dec 26, 2025

Italy’s competition authority has ordered Meta to suspend the WhatsApp Business Solution Terms that would have barred rival, general‑purpose AI chatbots from the messaging platform, legally pausing the platform’s planned January 15, 2026 enforcement and buying time for regulators to decide whether the contractual change amounts to an abuse of dominance.

Background / Overview

WhatsApp updated its WhatsApp Business Solution Terms on October 15, 2025 to introduce a new restriction: providers whose primary product is a general‑purpose AI assistant or LLM‑based chatbot would be prohibited from using the Business API to deliver that service. Meta said the change was intended to preserve the Business API’s enterprise focus — customer notifications, authenticated support flows and transactional messages — and to reduce system strain caused by open‑ended chat sessions. The proposed timeline gave new entrants immediate applicability and set a compliance deadline of January 15, 2026 for existing integrations. Several major AI providers — including Microsoft (Copilot) and OpenAI (ChatGPT) — announced plans to discontinue their WhatsApp integrations when the terms took effect. Microsoft explicitly published guidance telling users Copilot on WhatsApp would stop working on January 15, 2026 and advised exporting conversations because unauthenticated chats do not migrate automatically to Copilot’s native surfaces. Italian regulators moved quickly. The Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (AGCM) broadened an ongoing investigation into Meta and, invoking a precautionary mechanism under Section 14‑bis of Law No. 287/1990, adopted interim measures ordering Meta to suspend enforcement of the disputed contractual clauses in Italy while the authority completes its probe. The authority cited the risk of “serious and irreparable harm” to competition if rivals were evicted from a platform with strong network effects.

What the AGCM ordered — the emergency measure explained

The narrow but forceful interim step

The AGCM’s measure is not a final finding of infringement; it is an interim order designed to preserve the status quo during a full investigation. In plain terms, the authority:

Ordered Meta to suspend the application of the WhatsApp Business Solution Terms insofar as they exclude AI chatbots and competing assistants from accessing the WhatsApp channel in Italy.
Required Meta to provide a compliance report to the AGCM within a fixed period and warned of possible daily penalties for non‑compliance.
Grounded the measure in domestic law (Article 14‑bis of Law 287/1990) while citing the EU competition rulebook (Article 102 TFEU) as the substantive legal standard for assessing potential abuse.

Why Italy acted now

Regulators said the October contractual change, combined with Meta’s deeper integration and prominent placement of Meta AI inside WhatsApp, risked foreclosing a nascent market during a crucial early growth phase. The AGCM flagged three immediate harms:

Loss of an important distribution channel for third‑party assistants, which would raise rivals’ customer‑acquisition costs and likely entrench Meta’s own assistant through user habituation.
The risk that once excluded, competitors would find re‑entry prohibitively costly due to network effects and switching inertia.
The possibility that technical or safety arguments advanced by Meta could be used as a pretext for strategic exclusion.

The authority therefore concluded the conditions for interim measures — urgency, prima facie evidence of anti‑competitive effects, and risk of irreparable harm — were met in Italy.

Meta’s defense: infrastructure strain, product intent, and the “app‑store” argument

Meta’s public response has focused on operational constraints and product design principles rather than a denial of competitive intent. The company’s core defenses are:

The WhatsApp Business API was designed for predictable, enterprise messaging workloads (order updates, appointment reminders, authenticated customer service), not for unauthenticated, open‑ended LLM sessions that can generate sustained, variable traffic loads.
Allowing general‑purpose chatbots at scale could create moderation, safety, and reliability issues the Business API was not engineered to absorb; the policy change was thus justified as a technical and safety measure.
WhatsApp is not an “app store” and there are other appropriate routes to market for AI providers — app stores, web apps, direct integrations and OS‑level partnerships — so the restriction simply preserves the API’s enterprise purpose.

Meta described the AGCM ruling as “fundamentally flawed” and announced it would appeal the interim order. Reuters and TechCrunch captured Meta’s framing that the spike in LLM use “put a strain on our systems that they were not designed to support.”

The merits and limits of Meta’s technical defense

Meta’s infrastructure argument is plausible on its face: open‑ended LLM conversations can involve long responses, multi‑turn contexts, embedded media and other loads that differ from short transactional messages. That said, technical necessity is not an automatic legal shield against competition scrutiny. Regulators require proportionality and transparency: if a platform claims capacity limitations, it must demonstrate the limitation, show it tried less‑restrictive mitigations (rate‑limits, authentication, traffic prioritization, safety APIs) and explain why such alternatives are insufficient to protect legitimate enterprise use. Several analysts and legal commentators have emphasized that a blanket ban which reserves a distribution channel for a platform operator’s own product is the most legally vulnerable posture.

The Copilot and ChatGPT fallout — what users and Windows ecosystems should know

Microsoft announced that Copilot on WhatsApp will stop functioning on January 15, 2026, citing WhatsApp’s policy changes and urging users to export conversation history where needed. Microsoft also confirmed users should migrate to native Copilot surfaces — mobile apps, copilot.com, and Copilot on Windows — for continuity. For Windows desktop users, the practical effects are:

Users who relied on Copilot via WhatsApp must migrate to the Copilot Windows app or web interface to preserve functionality and account‑linked histories.
Conversations held inside unauthenticated WhatsApp sessions generally cannot be ported automatically to Microsoft’s account‑backed surfaces; Microsoft recommends manual export before the cutoff.
The AGCM suspension means that, at least in Italy, third‑party assistants could continue serving users on WhatsApp while the case proceeds — a relief for users who preferred in‑thread experiences. However, that continuity may be limited to Italy unless other national regulators adopt similar interim steps.

This episode underscores a broader product design lesson: platform dependence is a risk. Vendors that built discovery and user funnels around a single dominant messaging surface now face costly replatforming, while OS vendors and app developers (including Windows ecosystem partners) have an opening to attract displaced users to native apps and services.

EU coordination: a multi‑front regulatory push

The Italian interim measure is only part of a broader European offensive. The European Commission opened a formal antitrust investigation on December 4, 2025 to assess whether Meta’s policy breaches EU competition law across the European Economic Area (EEA). The Commission’s probe excludes Italy for the purposes of interim measures to avoid overlap with the national procedure, but the substantive EU investigation runs in parallel and will be treated as a priority. This coordination shows how national enforcers and EU institutions can operate complementarily: national authorities can deploy rapid interim tools to halt potentially irreparable market changes at home, while the Commission pursues EU‑wide remedies that could include structural or behavioral remedies and substantial fines if an abuse is found. The Commission’s opening of a formal investigation signals a high level of concern about platform self‑preferencing in AI distribution.

Legal theory and possible outcomes

The legal hooks

Regulators are evaluating the conduct under well‑established EU competition frameworks:

Article 102 TFEU prohibits an undertaking in a dominant market position from abusing that position to exclude rivals or distort competition. The AGCM and Commission appear to be assessing whether WhatsApp’s market position and the contract change constitute refusal to deal or self‑preferencing that denies rivals effective access to an important distribution channel.
Domestic interim‑measures law (Italy’s Law No. 287/1990, Article 14‑bis) allows rapid corrective steps where urgency and risk of irreparable harm are demonstrated.

Likely paths forward

Administrative investigation proceeds (Italy and EC) and collects evidence — product telemetry, contractual drafting, internal communications, traffic and moderation metrics.
Possible outcomes:
Regulation vindicates Meta: regulators accept the technical justification but may require narrow, transparent, non‑discriminatory safety measures; the ban could be upheld if Meta demonstrates proportionality.
Regulators find abuse: binding remedies could include rewording or annulment of the blocking clause, non‑discriminatory access obligations for the Business API, or behavioral remedies preventing self‑preferencing; EU fines are possible if infringement is established.
Settlement and commitments: Meta may offer commitments (technical, contractual and procedural) to preserve access under safe, authenticated patterns — a common remedy in EU digital cases.

Procedural timeline and appeals

The AGCM’s interim order does not end the dispute. Meta has announced plans to appeal the emergency ruling in Italy, which could trigger judicial review while the substantive administrative proceeding continues. The Commission’s inquiry is independent and may proceed to a Statement of Objections and, potentially, remedies with EU‑wide effect. These processes typically take months and can extend into a multi‑year enforcement saga.

Market implications: winners, losers and the architecture of distribution

Short‑term winners and losers

Winners (short term):
Regulators and proponents of open distribution: the AGCM’s intervention preserves competition in Italy for now and signals regulator willingness to act fast.
Competitors who retain access in Italy: services like Copilot (if Microsoft chooses to maintain service in Italy) and other third‑party assistants get a breathing spell.
Losers (short term):
Startups reliant on WhatsApp as a primary acquisition channel: the uncertainty and potential migration costs are acute.
Users who prefer seamless in‑thread assistants across borders may face fragmentation if providers selectively serve countries.

Long‑term market architecture

The dispute will shape whether messaging apps become open distribution surfaces for AI assistants or curated, vendor‑controlled ecosystems. If platforms can unilaterally reserve distribution for their own AI, emergent services that rely on low‑friction discovery will be disadvantaged. Conversely, if regulators force non‑discriminatory access under reasonable safety constraints, we may see a more pluralistic assistant market where multiple AI vendors compete on experience and model quality rather than exclusive placement.

Technical and policy considerations regulators will want demonstrated

To accept a technical necessity defense, Meta (or any platform) should ideally provide:

Detailed traffic and load metrics showing how LLM sessions differ materially from standard Business API calls.
Evidence that alternative mitigations (authentication, rate limiting, separate high‑capacity endpoints, priority queues, moderated sandboxing) were evaluated and why they were insufficient or impractical.
Transparent, non‑discriminatory criteria for distinguishing “primary” vs. “ancillary” AI use, with objective tests and an appeals mechanism — not a purely unilateral, subjective carve‑out.

If these elements are absent or opaque, the policy will look more like a competitive gatekeeping tactic than a narrowly tailored safety measure.

Practical advice for developers, businesses and Windows users (what to prepare for)

Auditing distribution strategy: vendors who used WhatsApp as a primary funnel must prioritize multi‑surface deployment — native apps, web presence and integrations with OS platforms like Windows — to reduce dependence on any single gatekeeper.
Account linking and authentication: authenticated experiences make migration and persistence of user history far easier; companies should invest in account‑backed flows rather than ephemeral, unauthenticated chats.
Export and continuity guidance: companies operating assistants on WhatsApp should publish clear export/migration instructions so users preserve important conversations before any cutoff dates. Microsoft’s Copilot guidance is a model: explicit timelines and migration paths to native apps.
Regulatory readiness: platform operators should maintain audit trails, safety testing logs and design justification for restrictive policies to survive scrutiny.

Strengths and risks of the AGCM approach — critical analysis

Notable strengths

Speed and targeted intervention: the AGCM used an established interim mechanism to prevent irreversible market foreclosure before the substantive probe concludes, which is precisely the remedial function such powers were designed to serve.
Alignment with EU enforcement: national intervention complements a Commission inquiry, strengthening the coherence of enforcement across jurisdictional lines.
Focus on contestability: regulators recognized that distribution channels matter as much as raw model quality for market entry and survival — a mature competition analysis suitable for platform ecosystems.

Key risks and open questions

Technical evidence gap: interim measures can be provisional; if Meta can convincingly demonstrate capacity or safety constraints and show alternative mitigations are infeasible, courts may later reverse or limit the remedy.
Fragmentation risk: nationalized interim decisions can create a patchwork where services operate in some countries but not others, imposing user confusion and compliance costs — a harm the Commission is better suited to fix with EU‑wide remedies.
Overreach vs. under‑enforcement balance: regulators must avoid crafting remedies that unduly restrict legitimate product governance or expose platforms to high moderation burdens without clear operational frameworks.

Where the law ultimately lands — whether in Italy’s courts, the AGCM’s final decision, or via the European Commission’s formal process — will define precedent for how platforms can control distribution of generative AI.

Conclusion

The AGCM’s interim order stopping Meta from enforcing the WhatsApp Business Solution Terms in Italy is a decisive early test of how competition law intersects with the governance of generative AI on mass messaging platforms. Regulators have framed the issue as one of contestability: if a platform can reserve a key distribution channel for its own assistant at the expense of rivals, the consequences for competition, consumer choice and innovation could be profound. Meta’s defenses — infrastructure strain and the claim that WhatsApp was never intended as an app‑store for AI assistants — raise legitimate operational questions, but they will need granular, transparent evidence to withstand competition scrutiny. Meanwhile, affected vendors and Windows users must accelerate migration and diversification strategies as the legal and commercial battle unfolds. The coming months will determine whether messaging apps remain open conduits for multiple AI entrants or become curated gardens where a platform’s own assistant enjoys privileged placement.
The dispute is now headed for courtroom filings, cross‑border regulatory jockeying and potentially EU‑wide remedies — a development that will set important guardrails for platform governance in the AI era.

Source: WinBuzzer Italy Orders Meta to Suspend WhatsApp AI Competitor Ban, Blocking Eviction of Rivals - WinBuzzer

ChatGPT · Dec 28, 2025

WhatsApp screen showing 'Interim Measures' on a balance scale—left: infinity, right: smiling faces, with a gavel nearby.

Italy’s competition watchdog has ordered Meta to reopen WhatsApp to rival AI chatbots, suspending new Business API terms that would have effectively barred general‑purpose assistants from the messaging platform while an abuse‑of‑dominance probe continues.

Background / Overview

The decision follows a months‑long investigation into how Meta integrated its own Meta AI assistant into WhatsApp and then updated the WhatsApp Business Solution Terms in a way that excluded competing, general‑purpose AI chatbots from using the platform. According to the Italian Competition Authority’s interim decision, which was issued in late December 2025, the updated terms — introduced in October and scheduled to take full effect in mid‑January 2026 — would completely block rival AI providers from the WhatsApp Business channel and risked undermining contestability in the nascent AI chatbot market.
This action is part of a broader wave of European enforcement targeting Big Tech platform conduct. The Italian regulator expanded an initial inquiry opened earlier in 2025 and imposed interim measures on Meta to preserve access for competitors while the substantive investigation proceeds. The European Commission has launched a parallel probe, and national authorities across the EU are coordinating on the competitive and regulatory implications of platform‑embedded AI services.

What the Italian order requires

Meta must immediately suspend the contractual terms that would exclude third‑party, general‑purpose AI chatbots from the WhatsApp Business Solution.
The interim measure preserves access to the WhatsApp platform for competing AI providers while the investigation continues.
The authority’s order rests on the preliminary finding that Meta’s conduct appears to constitute an abuse of a dominant position, with a real risk of serious and irreparable harm to competition and consumer choice.

The regulator framed the case around three linked concerns: market access, technical development, and consumer harm. The core regulatory theory is that by embedding and pre‑promoting Meta AI in WhatsApp and then closing the Business API to rival chatbots, Meta could channel users to its own assistant by default, not by superior product performance — a classic platform‑foreclosure scenario under EU competition law.

Timeline of key events

March 2025 — Meta expands Meta AI across its apps and embeds the assistant into WhatsApp (search bar integration and prominent placement).
July 2025 — Italy’s antitrust authority opens an investigation into whether Meta’s bundling of Meta AI with WhatsApp constitutes an abuse of dominance.
15 October 2025 — Meta publishes updated WhatsApp Business Solution Terms introducing a ban on general‑purpose AI providers from using the Business API; terms slated to be fully effective by 15 January 2026.
26 November 2025 — Italian authority broadens the investigation to include the new Business Solution Terms and opens a procedure for interim measures.
24 December 2025 — Interim measures issued: Meta ordered to suspend the exclusionary WhatsApp Business Solution Terms pending the outcome of the investigation.
Late 2025 — European Commission launches a parallel probe, reflecting escalating EU scrutiny.

These dates are central to the case because they show a sequence of product rollouts and contractual changes that the regulator views as interlinked: first product prominence, then policy changes that could lock out rivals.

Why regulators are concerned: legal and economic logic

The Article 102 framework (abuse of dominance)

At the heart of the Italian action is an Article 102 TFEU theory: a dominant platform that controls market access can abuse that position by tying or by discriminatory access rules that foreclose rivals. Regulators see three potential harms:

Foreclosure of rivals: blocking third‑party AI providers from a major distribution channel denies them direct access to users.
Harm to innovation: if new entrants cannot reach large user bases, innovation incentives and technical progress in the AI chatbot market may be reduced.
Consumer harm: fewer choices and potentially lower quality or slower improvements in AI services.

The interim measure standard is precautionary: the authority judged there was a plausible risk of serious and irreparable harm if the exclusionary terms were allowed to take effect while the probe continued.

Market definition and dominance

Regulators are treating WhatsApp — and consumer messaging apps more broadly — as a category of consumer communications apps where Meta is considered dominant, given WhatsApp’s scale in many EU countries. That market position gives the regulator leeway to examine whether Meta’s integration of its AI assistant and subsequent contractual rules distort competition.

What exactly did Meta change in the WhatsApp Business terms?

The October 2025 update to the Business Solution Terms added a specific section addressing “AI providers” and disallowed the use of the WhatsApp Business Solution for distributing general‑purpose AI assistants whose primary functionality is chatbot interaction. The company clarified that the update was not intended to block AI used for typical business customer support scenarios — retail order tracking, customer service automation, and similar uses would remain allowed — but would prevent companies from packaging and offering consumer‑facing chatbots on WhatsApp via the Business API.
Meta’s public justification centers on the design purpose of the Business API: it is for businesses to communicate with their customers (notifications, support, commerce), not a distribution channel for standalone consumer chatbots. The company also cited technical strain on systems from high‑volume automated chatbots as a rationale for restricting access.

Technical realities and platform engineering tradeoffs

The enforcement decision spotlights a set of real engineering and product tradeoffs that platforms face as they integrate advanced AI capabilities.

Systems designed for human‑to‑human messaging and business notifications are not always architected to handle high‑frequency automated agents that generate massive message flows.
Allowing third‑party bots at scale can introduce costs: increased throughput, moderation and abuse mitigation burdens, privacy and encryption compatibility issues, and higher operational risk.
Platforms can respond by investing in different technical stacks (rate limiting, dedicated bot channels, tiered API service levels) — but those investments are costly and create legitimate design choices.

The regulator’s position, however, is that technical constraints cannot be used as a pretext for excluding competition. If WhatsApp’s Business API is technically unsuitable for general‑purpose chatbots, the remedy should be to require reasonable access or alternative interfaces, not to lock competitors out entirely.

Implications for AI competitors and the market

OpenAI, Microsoft (Copilot integration), Perplexity and others: these providers had begun exploring distribution on major messaging platforms as a route to reach users. A forbidden Business API would have been a meaningful barrier to distribution for chat‑forward deployments.
Startups: excluding third‑party distribution channels magnifies the reach advantage of incumbents that control platforms. For starters, an assistant that’s preinstalled and tightly integrated with the UI (search bar, chat composer) has a discovery edge that’s hard to replicate.
Consumer choice: users may end up with fewer visible options, or be steered to the platform’s own assistant even when independent offerings are available elsewhere.

For developers and product teams, the ruling preserves access and keeps distribution options alive in the short term — but it also raises uncertainty about future contractual rules and technical standards.

Meta’s defense and likely appeal

Meta has said it will appeal the interim measure. The company’s public explanations have emphasized:

The Business API was designed for business‑customer interactions, not as a store for consumer chatbots.
The policy change aimed to protect platform stability and avoid unexpected strains.
There are alternative distribution paths for AI companies (app stores, websites, platform partnerships).

Meta has characterized the Italian ruling as flawed or groundless in its public responses and signaled that the policy change was an operational necessity rather than anti‑competitive behavior.
An effective defense will likely combine technical evidence (system load metrics, abuse statistics, traffic pattern analysis) with market framing (arguing that consumer messaging and AI chatbots are distinct markets and the Business API was misused by certain integrators). Meta’s appeal will also focus on proportionality: regulators must balance competition concerns against the company’s legitimate operational choices.

Enforcement tools and potential remedies

If the final finding is that Meta abused a dominant position, several remedies are possible:

Mandatory access obligations or non‑discriminatory API provisions.
Behavioral remedies limiting how Meta can promote its own assistant versus third‑party services within WhatsApp.
Structural remedies are unlikely but could be contemplated in extreme scenarios.
Fines: EU competition rules allow fines that can reach up to 10% of global turnover for breaches of Article 102, although interim measures themselves are aimed at preserving the status quo until a final decision.

Regulators commonly prefer behavioral remedies in platform cases — forcing non‑discriminatory access, transparency in ranking/promotion, or technical interfaces that allow competitors to interoperate — but the Italian authority’s interim language shows readiness to act quickly to prevent irreversible market foreclosure.

Wider regulatory context: EU attention, the AI Act, and platform law

This case intersects with multiple strands of EU policy and enforcement:

Competition law (Article 102 TFEU) — classic tool against platform foreclosure and tying.
Digital Markets Act (DMA) — aims to regulate large “gatekeeper” platforms with obligations around data access, non‑discrimination, and interoperability. While DMA remedies are rule‑based and proactive, competition law remains the primary ex post enforcement tool.
AI Act — focuses on safety, transparency and governance of AI systems and may impose obligations that affect how assistants are deployed in consumer contexts.
Coordinated enforcement — national authorities and the European Commission are increasingly collaborating to ensure consistent outcomes in cross‑border platform markets.

The Italian order signals that competition authorities will not hesitate to step in where platform design and commercial rules jointly disadvantage rivals — even while safety and privacy regulators are simultaneously examining AI features.

Practical implications for businesses, developers, and users

For AI providers and startups

Maintain multiple distribution strategies: native apps, web apps, and direct site integrations remain essential. Reliance on a single platform’s Business API is a fragile plan.
Prepare for possible requirements to interoperate with platform APIs under non‑discriminatory terms. Technical readiness for rate limits, encryption constraints, and verification processes will matter.
Document legitimate use cases for APIs (customer support vs general‑purpose assistant) and keep audit trails in case of regulatory scrutiny.

For enterprises using WhatsApp for customer service

The ruling does not ban using AI for customer support scenarios — business use cases remain broadly permitted.
Businesses should prepare vendor contingency plans in case access rules change or become more restrictive in the long term.

For consumers

Short‑term benefit: the interim order preserves broader access to AI assistants on WhatsApp while regulators investigate.
Long‑term outcomes will influence how many of the major assistants are discoverable inside everyday messaging apps.

Key strengths and risks of the regulator’s approach

Strengths

Prevention of irreversible harm: interim measures are appropriate where a dominant platform’s contractual change could lock out competitors quickly.
Market‑level thinking: regulators are recognizing that platform design and distribution rules are as powerful as product features when shaping nascent AI markets.
Coordination: alignment with the European Commission helps avoid fragmentation and reinforces enforcement credibility.

Risks and uncertainties

Technical complexity: courts and competition authorities must assess highly technical infrastructure claims. Misreading engineering constraints could produce remedies that are operationally infeasible or overly prescriptive.
Innovation tradeoffs: forcing open access without regard to system integrity could increase abuse and degrade user experience — regulators need tailored, technically informed remedies.
Global fragmentation: divergent approaches between Europe and other jurisdictions (notably the U.S. could create compliance complexity and business friction worldwide.

Regulatory remedies must therefore be precise, technically informed, and proportionate to avoid substituting one set of harms (foreclosure) for others (platform instability, security issues).

Likely scenarios and what to watch next

Meta appeals and seeks a stay — the company is expected to challenge the interim measure in court, citing technical necessity and contesting the legal characterization of the API change.
Regulators demand technical access terms — the final remedy could require Meta to publish a clear API policy that allows third‑party assistants under fair, non‑discriminatory conditions and includes capacity management rules.
European Commission coordinates broader remedies — if the EU executive finds systemic issues, it could pursue a continent‑wide remedy or leverage the DMA/AI Act to impose standards.
Industry adapts — platforms may move toward tiered API models, with dedicated channels for high‑volume bot usage, authentication requirements, or certification regimes for AI operators.

The timeline to a final ruling could span many months to years, but the interim measure already preserves market access through at least the coming weeks, offering a breathing space for rivals and for regulators to craft longer‑term solutions.

Why this matters for the future of embedded AI

Messaging apps are a primary point of daily digital interaction for billions of users. How AI assistants are discovered, embedded, and regulated inside those experiences will shape which companies capture the next wave of consumer AI engagement.

If platforms can control distribution and promotion of assistants inside ubiquitous apps, incumbents gain outsized leverage over which models users adopt.
If regulators require open, non‑discriminatory access, the result may be a more competitive ecosystem where specialized assistants and startups can thrive.
The balance between stability/security and contestability/open access will be the policy fulcrum of this decade’s platform governance debates.

Flagging uncertainty and unverifiable claims

Some public statements from involved parties vary in wording across outlets. Meta has publicly defended its policy changes by arguing technical necessity and emphasizing the Business API’s intended purpose; different statements reported in the media use terms such as “groundless” or “fundamentally flawed.” The exact phrasing varies by outlet and press remark, and those differences should be treated as reporting variations rather than substantive divergences in legal position.
Where factual claims hinge on internal metrics (exact system load figures, abuse incident counts, forecasted infrastructure costs), those are not publicly verifiable beyond the parties’ own disclosures and regulator filings. Any claim about the magnitude of technical strain or the precise number of affected third‑party bots should therefore be treated as contested until validated by independent audits or court proceedings.

Bottom line and practical takeaways

The Italian Competition Authority has ordered Meta to suspend WhatsApp terms that excluded rival AI chatbots, preserving access for competitors as the investigation continues.
This is an early, but important, enforcement test of how competition law applies to platform‑embedded AI services and contractual API rules.
The case highlights the tension between platform design choices (stability, abuse prevention) and competition policy (market access, innovation incentives).
For developers, businesses and consumers, the ruling sustains immediate access options but increases legal and operational uncertainty about how AI assistants will be distributed through messaging apps in the longer term.
The next moves to watch: Meta’s appeal strategy, the Italian authority’s final investigation outcome, and whether the European Commission coordinates a broader remedy that sets continent‑wide precedents.

The intersection of messaging platforms and generative AI is now firmly on the regulatory map. How authorities calibrate remedies — balancing technical feasibility with competitive fairness — will determine whether messaging apps become open battlegrounds for multiple assistants or gated channels dominated by a platform’s own AI.

Source: tickernews.co Italy orders Meta to open WhatsApp to AI competitors

Navigation section

Italy Pauses Meta WhatsApp AI Ban as Regulators Probe Rival Chatbots

What the AGCM action — and the underlying policy — actually do​

The contractual change at issue​

What the AGCM interim measures seek to prevent​

Legal framework and competition theory​

The legal hooks: national and EU competition law​

Theories of harm in play​

Why regulators are treating AI + messaging as high‑risk​

The practical technical arguments Meta has advanced — and their limits​

Commercial and market implications​

For AI providers and startups​

For businesses using WhatsApp for customer service​

For Meta and the platform economy​

Precedents and enforcement mechanics: what might happen next​

Technical and product design lessons for platforms and AI providers​

Practical checklist for business and product teams (short‑term actions)​

Risks that regulators and the market must weigh​

Strategic scenarios and likely timelines​

What this means for the broader AI ecosystem​

Final assessment​

ChatGPT

AI

Background and overview​

Why regulators acted: the competition theory in plain terms​

Dominance, gatekeeping and early market dynamics​

Article 102 TFEU and interim measures​

What changed technically and commercially​

The policy mechanics: Business API vs in‑app features​

Practical vendor consequences​

Cross‑checking the facts: verified dates, numbers and claims​

Strategic implications for platforms, AI vendors and businesses​

For Meta / WhatsApp​

For AI vendors and startups​

For enterprises and IT teams​

The technical defence Meta offers — and its limits​

What’s at stake for public policy and platform governance​

Practical guidance for IT leaders and developers (quick checklist)​

Risks, uncertainties and open questions​

Wider market effects and likely next moves​

Final analysis​

ChatGPT

AI

Background​

What Meta changed — the policy in plain language​

The new clause and its scope​

Business API vs in‑app features​

The AGCM action and legal rationale​

Interim relief and Article 102 TFEU​

The AGCM’s competitive concern​

What vendors said and the immediate practical effects​

Technical and safety arguments: Meta’s case vs regulators’ skepticism​

The legal and procedural path ahead​

Immediate procedural steps​

Parallel EU and multi‑jurisdictional dimensions​

Market and product implications​

For AI vendors and startups​

For enterprises and developers​

For users and consumer experience​

Potential remedies and regulatory solutions​

Strategic risks and strengths — a balanced assessment​

Strengths of Meta’s approach​

Material risks for Meta​

Risks for AI vendors and the broader market​

Practical checklist — what businesses and developers should do now​

Broader policy implications and what to watch next​

Conclusion​

ChatGPT

AI

Background / Overview​

What the AGCM actually ordered​

The interim measures and legal basis​

Why AGCM considers the conduct harmful​

What Meta says (and its defenses)​

Where other participants stand​

Why this matters: competition, distribution and the early AI market​

The economics of distribution​

The technical argument from Meta​

Market share and scale considerations​

Legal analysis: antitrust theory and precedent​

What the AGCM action — and the underlying policy — actually do

The contractual change at issue

What the AGCM interim measures seek to prevent

Legal framework and competition theory

The legal hooks: national and EU competition law

Theories of harm in play

Why regulators are treating AI + messaging as high‑risk

The practical technical arguments Meta has advanced — and their limits

Commercial and market implications

For AI providers and startups

For businesses using WhatsApp for customer service

For Meta and the platform economy

Precedents and enforcement mechanics: what might happen next

Technical and product design lessons for platforms and AI providers

Practical checklist for business and product teams (short‑term actions)

Risks that regulators and the market must weigh

Strategic scenarios and likely timelines

What this means for the broader AI ecosystem

Final assessment

Background and overview

Why regulators acted: the competition theory in plain terms

Dominance, gatekeeping and early market dynamics

Article 102 TFEU and interim measures

What changed technically and commercially

The policy mechanics: Business API vs in‑app features

Practical vendor consequences

Cross‑checking the facts: verified dates, numbers and claims

Strategic implications for platforms, AI vendors and businesses

For Meta / WhatsApp

For AI vendors and startups

For enterprises and IT teams

The technical defence Meta offers — and its limits

What’s at stake for public policy and platform governance

Practical guidance for IT leaders and developers (quick checklist)

Risks, uncertainties and open questions

Wider market effects and likely next moves

Final analysis

Background

What Meta changed — the policy in plain language

The new clause and its scope

Business API vs in‑app features

The AGCM action and legal rationale

Interim relief and Article 102 TFEU

The AGCM’s competitive concern

What vendors said and the immediate practical effects

Technical and safety arguments: Meta’s case vs regulators’ skepticism

The legal and procedural path ahead

Immediate procedural steps

Parallel EU and multi‑jurisdictional dimensions

Market and product implications

For AI vendors and startups

For enterprises and developers

For users and consumer experience

Potential remedies and regulatory solutions

Strategic risks and strengths — a balanced assessment

Strengths of Meta’s approach

Material risks for Meta

Risks for AI vendors and the broader market

Practical checklist — what businesses and developers should do now

Broader policy implications and what to watch next

Conclusion

Background / Overview

What the AGCM actually ordered

The interim measures and legal basis

Why AGCM considers the conduct harmful

What Meta says (and its defenses)

Where other participants stand

Why this matters: competition, distribution and the early AI market

The economics of distribution

The technical argument from Meta

Market share and scale considerations

Legal analysis: antitrust theory and precedent

Tying and exclusion under Article 102 TFUE

Interim relief as a tool

Immediate implications for developers, businesses and users

For AI developers and chatbot vendors

For enterprises using WhatsApp Business API

For consumers

Strategic and operational recommendations (for CIOs, product leads and legal counsel)

Wider regulatory and industry implications