In a move that signals just how much the regulatory ground has shifted for Big Tech in Europe, Meta has quietly offered competing AI chatbots a limited window of free access to WhatsApp. The proposal, which has not been publicly detailed until now, would allow rival services to use the messaging platform without charge up to a specific usage cap. After that point, Meta would begin charging them. This development, confirmed by two people familiar with the matter, comes as the company tries to address mounting pressure from European Union antitrust regulators who have grown increasingly unwilling to let platform owners control emerging markets like generative AI.
Mark Zuckerberg’s company, which also owns Facebook and Instagram, submitted this proposal to the European Commission last week. The timing was not accidental. The Commission had already signaled that it was considering an interim order forcing Meta to grant rivals access to WhatsApp while a longer investigation into the company’s conduct continued. No official details of Meta’s offer had been shared publicly until now, but interested parties were given until May 18 to submit feedback. Now, the Commission faces a decision: accept Meta’s proposal as a good-faith effort to restore competition, or reject it and push forward with binding measures.
At the heart of this case is a question that keeps antitrust officials awake at night. How do you keep new digital markets like AI assistants open and competitive when the same companies that control the world’s most popular communication tools also want to dominate artificial intelligence? The EU’s concern is straightforward but serious. If Meta can decide which AI chatbots get to talk to WhatsApp’s billions of users, and under what terms, then smaller innovators may never get a fair shot. The Commission has made no secret of its priority here: keeping the growing market for AI assistants open, competitive, and free from the kind of platform gatekeeping that defined the previous decade of tech battles.
Meta’s offer would initially give rival AI chatbots free access to WhatsApp’s business API, which is the software interface that allows two systems to communicate with each other. That free access would be capped at a certain volume of messages sent to users. Once a competing chatbot hits that limit, Meta would begin charging. The company has publicly reiterated that it has already provided free access for one month while discussions continue. But behind closed doors, the reception from smaller players has been cold at best.
Two startups that had previously complained to the Commission about Meta’s behavior made it clear they are far from satisfied. The Interaction Company of California, which develops the Poke.com AI assistant, did not mince words. The company said, “Unfortunately, Meta’s current proposal is far from resolving any of the competition concerns identified in this case.” It added a stark warning: “If Meta does not put forward a genuinely constructive proposal without delay, we urge the Commission to proceed with the interim measures.”
That sentiment was echoed by another complainant, French startup Agentik. Its founder, Jeremy Andre, pointed out what he sees as a core unfairness in Meta’s approach. The offer does not apply to Meta’s own AI assistant, meaning the company’s own chatbot would continue operating under different rules. Andre noted that while Meta’s own AI chatbot does not use WhatsApp’s API in the same way, the distinction does little to calm fears that the playing field is being tilted from the start.
Looking back, this standoff has been building for months. Meta introduced a policy in January that allowed only its own Meta AI assistant on WhatsApp. That did not go over well with regulators. By March, the company amended its stance, saying rival chatbots could use the messaging app but only for a fee. That triggered a second formal charge sheet from the EU watchdog. In response, Meta suspended fees for a month while it worked on a revised proposal. That proposal is the one now sitting with the Commission.
From the outside, it is easy to see both sides. Meta argues that its infrastructure costs real money and that it should be able to charge for access, just like any other platform. The company has pointed out that its own AI assistant does not use the WhatsApp business API, so comparisons are not apples to apples. On the other hand, smaller AI developers see a familiar pattern. A dominant platform holder offers access only after complaints, caps that access, and reserves the right to start charging once a rival gains any traction. For a startup, that is not an open market. It is a toll road with an unpredictable fare.
What makes this case particularly interesting for anyone watching the intersection of competition law and emerging technology is the speed at which the EU is moving. The Commission has not waited for a full investigation to conclude before threatening interim measures. That signals a real shift in enforcement philosophy. Regulators are no longer content to let markets tip first and intervene later. They want to shape the competitive landscape in real time, especially for technologies like AI that are still finding their feet.
