Milan: A messaging app that hundreds of millions of Europeans open without a second thought has become the newest front in the bloc’s competition wars. On 9 June the European Commission imposed interim measures on Meta, ordering the company to preserve the status quo while regulators finish a full antitrust investigation into how the group treats rival artificial-intelligence providers on WhatsApp.
The probe itself dates to December 2025, when officials opened a case into a Meta policy that, in the Commission’s reading, made competing AI assistants effectively inaccessible inside the app. Interim measures are a rarely used tool. They allow enforcers to freeze conduct they consider potentially harmful before a final ruling, precisely because a market can tip beyond repair while a multi-year case grinds on. Reaching for them signals that the Commission believes the risk to competition is both real and immediate.
For challengers building AI chat services, distribution is everything. A model that cannot reach users through the messaging surfaces they already use starts at a structural disadvantage, no matter how capable it is. That is why the question of who gets to plug into WhatsApp is not a narrow technical dispute but a test of whether the emerging AI market stays contestable. The order does not decide guilt; it buys time and keeps doors open while the substance is examined.
The move lands amid a broader recalibration of European merger and antitrust thinking. The Commission spent much of June consulting on draft merger assessment guidelines, with the window for comments closing on 26 June, and separately absorbed a General Court judgment on the reach of its document-gathering powers in so-called gun-jumping cases. Taken together, the strands point to an enforcement culture willing to test the limits of its toolkit rather than wait for harm to settle.
Meta can contest the interim order and will have every incentive to argue that its policy protects users and system integrity rather than shutting out rivals. The company has room to propose commitments that would reopen access on terms regulators find acceptable, which is often how these disputes end. What matters for the wider industry is the precedent that a dominant platform cannot quietly wall off adjacent services while a case proceeds.
The next milestones are procedural but consequential. The Commission must defend the measures if challenged, and the underlying investigation will run its course toward either commitments or a formal decision. For Europe’s smaller AI developers, the immediate relief is simple: the field stays open a little longer, and the outcome of this fight may shape who they can reach for years.




