Italy Orders Meta to Pause WhatsApp AI Chatbot Ban Amid EU Antitrust Probe

Italy’s competition authority has ordered Meta to pause parts of its new WhatsApp Business Solution rules that would have barred rival AI chatbots from operating on the messaging platform, an interim decision that crystallizes a wider regulatory struggle over platform control, AI distribution and the future of competitive access to critical digital channels.

Background / Overview​

WhatsApp’s Business Solution (commonly called the Business API) has long been an enterprise channel for transactional messages, customer support and verified business workflows. In mid‑October 2025, WhatsApp updated its Business Solution terms to introduce an explicit prohibition on what it defined as “AI Providers” — broadly, developers or operators of large language models (LLMs), generative AI platforms and general‑purpose assistants — from using the Business API when AI functionality is the provider’s primary offering. The October terms applied immediately to new entrants and set a compliance deadline of 15 January 2026 for existing integrations. Regulators reacted quickly. Italy’s Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (AGCM) expanded an investigation it opened in July 2025 and, after an accelerated proceeding, used interim powers on 24 December 2025 to order Meta to suspend the exclusionary clauses pending a full antitrust probe. The AGCM’s intervention is narrow and targeted: it pauses enforcement of the specific Business Solution terms in Italy that would have foreclosed third‑party AI chatbots from the WhatsApp channel. At the same time, the European Commission opened a formal antitrust investigation in early December 2025 into whether Meta’s policy change — combined with the integration and prominent placement of Meta’s own assistant inside WhatsApp — unlawfully disadvantages rival AI providers across the European Economic Area (EEA). The Commission’s probe covers the EEA as a whole but excludes Italy to avoid duplicative proceedings while AGCM pursues its national case. Why regulators view this as more than a contract dispute is simple: messaging platforms like WhatsApp are high‑value distribution surfaces with powerful network effects. Blocking rivals from those surfaces at an early stage of market formation can cause “serious and irreparable” harm to competition, regulators say — which is the legal justification for interim relief in competition law.

---

What the AGCM actually ordered​

The interim measure — scope and legal basis​

The AGCM’s decision requires Meta to immediately suspend the WhatsApp Business Solution contractual terms insofar as they exclude competing AI chatbots from the WhatsApp platform in Italy. The authority based the action on the domestic enforcement route for interim measures and framed the substantive concern under Article 102 TFEU (abuse of a dominant position), invoking the risk of “serious and irreparable” harm to the emerging market for AI chatbots if exclusionary clauses were allowed to take effect while the investigation continues. The order is not a final finding of liability; it is a precaution designed to preserve the competitive status quo while investigators gather evidence. If Meta complies, third‑party chatbots may continue to operate through WhatsApp’s Business Solution in Italy under the old terms until the AGCM completes its probe. Non‑compliance exposes Meta to potential penalties and additional remedies under Italian procedure.

What the October terms would have done in practice​

• The updated terms define “AI Providers” in broad terms that encompass LLM operators, generative platforms and general‑purpose assistants.
• They bar such providers from using the Business API when AI is the provider’s primary service, while still allowing AI that is incidental to conventional business workflows (e.g., automated customer replies or transactional assistance).
• New entrants were subject to the ban from 15 October 2025; existing integrations were given until 15 January 2026 to comply or be removed.

Regulators stress the practical effect: by denying rival AI assistants access to a mass messaging platform during a formative stage of market expansion, Meta could entrench its own assistant via distribution advantages that rivals would struggle to match. That is the AGCM’s principal competitive concern.

---

What Meta says — technical constraints, enforcement and appeal​

Meta’s public defense frames the policy change as an operational decision rather than an exclusionary strategy. The company argues the Business API was never designed as a mass distribution layer for open‑ended, general‑purpose chatbots and that the sudden emergence of high‑volume chatbot traffic places moderation, security and infrastructure strain on servers and authenticated business flows. From Meta’s perspective, preserving the API for enterprise B2C use cases protects reliability and customer safety. Meta called the AGCM order “fundamentally flawed” and announced plans to appeal. Those technical claims are plausible in principle — large‑scale unauthenticated chatbot sessions can generate heavy, unpredictable load and moderation complexity. But they are also contestable as a legal justification: regulators require operational arguments to be proportionate, specific and narrowly tailored. Broad contractual bans that exclude whole classes of competitors face far more scrutiny than targeted, clearly evidenced safety measures. The AGCM explicitly accepted the risk of irreparable competitive harm, which is why it intervened.
Important caveat: Meta’s assertion about infrastructure strain is an internal operational claim that is not independently verifiable from outside the company without access to Meta’s telemetry and moderation metrics. As such, regulators and courts will weigh Meta’s technical evidence against its competitive effects; public reporting to date reflects statements from both sides rather than neutral verification.

---

Why this matters: distribution, network effects and AI as a platform​

WhatsApp is not a niche channel. Meta reported dramatic user scale for the service in 2025, with independent tracking indicating monthly active users in the billions (TechCrunch and Statista both reference a March–May 2025 milestone of roughly 3 billion MAUs). That scale makes WhatsApp a strategic distribution surface for consumer services, including AI assistants. For many providers, being available in‑thread on WhatsApp transformed frictionless discovery, onboarding and habitual usage into immediate growth. Distribution matters because:

• Messaging platforms exhibit strong network effects: losing access to a channel used by hundreds of millions can be fatal to a nascent assistant’s growth.
• In‑app presence reduces friction: users message a contact, get answers, and keep using the same surface — that convenience is competitively valuable.
• Data and engagement advantages accrue to the provider that enjoys privileged placement and visibility inside the client.

If platforms with dominant reach can lawfully restrict competing AI services from their most effective distribution channels, the consequences extend beyond a single product line: market entry becomes costlier, startups must rebuild acquisition funnels outside the dominant surface, and innovation incentives shift in favour of vertically integrated incumbents. That is precisely the outcome competition authorities want to prevent where abuse is suspected.

---

The broader European context: DMA, Article 102 and a tougher regulatory posture​

Italy’s intervention sits inside a larger EU enforcement narrative. European regulators have repeatedly signalled that platform gatekeeping cannot be used to close off emerging markets to rivals. The European Commission’s December 2025 investigation into Meta’s WhatsApp policy explicitly asked whether the policy could prevent third‑party AI providers from offering services across the EEA. The Commission and member state authorities are coordinating their inquiries to avoid parallel enforcement overlap while ensuring comprehensive scrutiny. Two legal instruments shape the authority’s approach:

• Article 102 TFEU: prohibits abuse of a dominant position, including exclusionary conduct and discriminatory access rules. The AGCM invoked this provision in its precautionary action.
• Digital Markets Act (DMA) and related EU policy: while the DMA targets "gatekeeper" platforms with ex ante obligations (e.g., interoperability, non‑discrimination), broader competition enforcement still relies on Article 102 and national law. Regulators view the combination of ex ante rules and antitrust enforcement as complementary tools to preserve contestability. The current investigations reflect that layered strategy.

Regulatory activism in this domain is not hypothetical: recent enforcement in Europe against large tech firms has been fast and consequential, including substantial fines and behavioral remedies under various regimes. The stakes here include potential monetary penalties and structural remedies such as compelled interoperability or non‑discrimination mandates — outcomes that could reshape how platforms open themselves to third‑party AI services.

---

Who is affected — real‑world implications for providers, businesses and users​

Startups and third‑party AI providers​

• Short term: firms that deployed open‑ended assistants on WhatsApp must adapt distribution strategies — building or redirecting users to native apps, web widgets, or alternative messaging channels.
• Long term: the case will set precedent about whether dominant platforms can legally limit access to high‑value surfaces during market formation. That will inform investment, product design and go‑to‑market choices across the AI landscape.

Enterprises using WhatsApp for customer service​

Businesses that use AI as an ancillary tool for support and notifications are largely unaffected by the ban’s stated scope, but they may face platform governance uncertainty while enforcement and litigation play out. Vendors must monitor compliance requirements to avoid service disruptions after the January 2026 enforcement date contemplated by Meta.

Consumers and everyday users​

Consumers who accessed assistants like ChatGPT or Copilot inside WhatsApp lost a low‑friction experience when providers announced planned exits ahead of the January deadline; the AGCM suspension restores access in Italy for the moment. However, unauthenticated conversations inside WhatsApp often do not port to vendor account histories; users may already have been advised by vendors to link accounts or export chats to preserve history.

---

Legal and technical fault lines: what courts and regulators will examine​

Regulators and eventual courts will parse three core questions:

• Dominance and indispensability: Is WhatsApp sufficiently dominant in relevant markets that exclusion from its Business API constitutes a de facto refusal to deal or a foreclosure risk?
• Proportionality of technical measures: Are Meta’s technical and safety justifications for the ban supported by evidence, narrowly tailored, and less restrictive alternatives tested?
• Foreclosure effects and timing: Would enforcement of the October terms during market formation create irreversible harms to rivals that cannot be remedied ex post?

Expect the AGCM and the European Commission to demand granular operational evidence from Meta: load tests, moderation incident rates, capacity plans, and alternative mitigations (e.g., authenticated sessions, rate limiting, safety APIs). Vague statements about “infrastructure strain” are unlikely to satisfy regulators if the measures have broad exclusionary effects. Meta will need to demonstrate that no less‑restrictive option could protect platform integrity while preserving third‑party access.

---

Practical steps for companies navigating the disruption​

Startups, vendors and businesses facing this regulatory churn should consider immediate and medium‑term measures:

• Export and portability planning: Ensure users can migrate chat history to vendor accounts where feasible, minimizing loss if platform access is cut.
• Multi‑surface distribution: Diversify discovery channels — native apps, web, other messaging platforms, voice assistants — to reduce dependence on any single distribution gatekeeper.
• Authentication strategy: Prioritise authenticated user sessions and account linking to support continuity and richer experiences even if unauthenticated surfaces are limited.
• Compliance monitoring: Track regulatory developments in target markets (Italy, the EEA) and prepare for jurisdictional variations in enforcement.

These steps are not novel technics — they are strategic risk‑management practices for companies that rely on third‑party platforms. The Meta–WhatsApp dispute underscores why platform dependence is a structural vulnerability in the modern cloud and app economy.

---

Strengths and weaknesses of the AGCM action — a critical appraisal​

Strengths​

• Rapid, targeted relief: The AGCM’s interim measure is surgical — it suspends only the exclusionary clauses and only within Italy. That limits unnecessary disruption while the investigation proceeds.
• Preserving contestability: Acting at an early stage in a nascent market can prevent foreclosure effects that are hard to reverse, protecting innovation incentives and consumer choice.
• Coordinated enforcement: Working alongside the European Commission ensures regulatory coherence across jurisdictions and amplifies the scrutiny on platform design choices.

Weaknesses and risks​

• Overreach concerns: Interim measures are extraordinary; critics could argue the AGCM risks micromanaging platform engineering and constraining legitimate product safety choices if regulators undervalue technical constraints.
• Burden of evidence: If regulators cannot substantiate irreparable harm, courts may overturn the suspension — prolonging legal uncertainty and imposing compliance costs on all parties.
• Fragmentation risk: Differing national remedies in a single market can cause compliance complexity for global platforms, creating operational friction even where harmonised rules would be preferable.

Balancing these strengths and weaknesses is the tough job courts and competition authorities face: they must protect competition without stifling legitimate security or architectural necessities. The legal outcome will be significant for future platform governance.

---

What to watch next — timeline and likely scenarios​

• Meta’s appeal: Meta has signalled it will appeal the AGCM interim order. Expect constitutional and administrative litigation in Italy’s administrative courts (TAR) in the coming weeks.
• AGCM’s substantive probe: The AGCM will gather evidence, hear parties and may either close the case, impose fines or order longer‑term behavioral remedies if it finds an abuse of dominance.
• EU Commission investigation: The Commission’s EEA‑wide probe could lead to an EU‑level decision with broader remedies and larger fines if unlawful conduct is found. This parallel channel raises the prospect of harmonised remedies across member states.
• Industry responses: Vendors and startups will accelerate contingency plans — account linking, export tools, and alternative distribution — while investors and customers watch for how the regulatory outcome affects market concentration.

Possible outcomes range from a negotiated technical regime (safety APIs, authenticated channels, explicit non‑discrimination commitments) to stronger structural remedies or fines if regulators find deliberate foreclosure. The case will set a high‑water mark for how antitrust law regulates platform‑level gatekeeping over AI distribution.

---

Conclusion​

Italy’s AGCM has applied a blunt but legally available instrument — an interim suspension — to preserve competitive access to one of the world’s most powerful messaging surfaces. The action reflects a broader European insistence that dominant platforms cannot quietly rewrite the rules of distribution to favour their own AI offerings, particularly when the excluded parties are nascent competitors in a high‑growth market.
For Meta, the stakes are operational and strategic: a victory would allow the company to shape how conversational AI is distributed inside its ecosystem; a loss could force permanent, Europe‑wide limits on using product terms to foreclose rivals. For AI providers, the ruling buys time and underlines the importance of multi‑surface strategy and authenticated experiences. For regulators and courts, the case will become a benchmark for how competition law and platform governance intersect in the generative‑AI era.
Readers should note that some operational claims made by Meta — notably those about infrastructure strain and moderation costs — are assertions about internal metrics and are not independently verifiable with public evidence at this time; regulators will require Meta to substantiate those claims during the investigation. The coming months will show whether technical necessity or competitive protectionism drove the October 2025 change — and the answer will materially shape the architecture of AI distribution for years to come.

---

Source: abacusnews.com https://www.abacusnews.com/italy-th...whatsapp-must-stay-open-to-rival-ai-chatbots/