Brussels: The most consequential antitrust battles of the moment are no longer about cement or sugar but about who gets to plug a chatbot into the apps that billions of people already use. The European Commission moved into that territory this month with a decision targeting the exclusion of rival artificial-intelligence providers from WhatsApp, a case that tests whether the bloc’s competition rules can keep pace with a market reorganising itself around AI assistants.
The concern is familiar in shape even if the subject is new. A messaging service with an enormous installed base is a gateway, and the company that controls it can decide which outside developers are allowed to reach those users and on what terms. When the service owner also offers its own AI assistant, the temptation to favour that product and freeze out competitors is obvious. The Commission’s intervention is designed to keep the gateway open, ensuring that independent AI developers can compete for users inside the messaging environment rather than being shut out before the contest begins.
The timing is not accidental. Generative AI assistants are still deciding their distribution channels, and embedding inside a dominant messaging app is among the most valuable real estate available. A foreclosure that goes unchallenged now could harden into a permanent advantage, locking in whichever assistant the platform owner prefers long before users develop loyalties of their own. Competition authorities have learned from earlier technology waves that remedies imposed years after a market tips tend to arrive too late to matter.
The decision lands amid a broader rethink of how Europe polices market power. The Commission published draft merger guidelines this spring and is gathering comments on them until the end of June, the first wholesale revision of that guidance since the mid-2000s. The new text would organise the analysis around theories of harm rather than the old division between horizontal and vertical deals, a change meant to give the Commission more room to challenge acquisitions that consolidate control over data, computing power or distribution. Dealmakers have noticed, and not all of them welcome the additional uncertainty.
The two strands converge on the same anxiety, that a handful of firms could come to dominate the AI economy the way an earlier generation dominated search and social media. The merger review aims to stop that concentration forming through acquisitions; the WhatsApp action aims to stop it forming through self-preferencing on platforms that already exist.
Whether the strategy works will depend on enforcement that holds up under the inevitable legal challenge and on remedies that genuinely change behaviour rather than merely documenting it. Companies subject to these decisions have deep benches of lawyers and strong incentives to litigate. For now the message from the Commission is plain. The infrastructure on which AI assistants reach the public is to be treated as contested ground, and the firms that own it will not be left to decide unsupervised who is allowed to compete there.




