Brazil's Administrative Council for Economic Defense (CADE) this month imposed interim measures against Meta, suspending the company's policy that would ban third-party AI chatbots from accessing WhatsApp's messaging platform. The decision marks the second major antitrust intervention within weeks targeting Meta's planned exclusion of competing AI services.

According to CADE's technical note published January 12, 2026, the authority found prima facie evidence that Meta holds an uncontested dominant position in Brazil's instant messaging market. WhatsApp serves more than 150 million Brazilian users, with 99% of smartphone owners having the application installed and 97% accessing it daily or almost daily. The platform's dominance, reinforced by strong network effects, provides Meta with substantial market power that the company appears to be leveraging inappropriately.

The Brazilian investigation centers on Meta's October 2025 modification of WhatsApp Business Solution Terms, which prohibits AI service providers from accessing the platform when AI capabilities constitute their primary functionality. The new contractual conditions, scheduled to take full effect January 15, 2026, would have blocked general-purpose AI assistants including ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, Perplexity, and smaller providers like Spain's Luzia and Colombia's Zapia from reaching WhatsApp's massive user base.

CADE concluded that the total exclusion of third-party AI tools appears disproportionate, especially since Meta continues offering its own Meta AI service within WhatsApp. The authority noted that "a dominant firm must pursue its objectives through the least restrictive means, and less anticompetitive alternatives appear plausible" - citing the Brazilian interpretation of the European Union's "special responsibility" doctrine for dominant companies.

The competitive concerns extend beyond simple market access. CADE's analysis identified what it characterizes as an offensive leveraging strategy, where Meta uses dominance in messaging to foreclose competition in AI services not through competition on the merits but through exclusion. This pattern follows what the authority described as a calculated progression: first welcoming third-party AI providers to the platform, then introducing Meta's own AI service with preferential access, and finally excluding all competitors entirely.

Meta had argued that third-party AI chatbots were causing infrastructure problems the WhatsApp Business API was never designed to handle. According to the company's December 15 response to CADE, general-purpose AI assistants generated message volumes far exceeding typical customer service interactions, causing system failures on at least three occasions. The company maintained that developers of these chatbots were essentially "free-riding" on Meta's infrastructure without appropriate compensation.

The company further contended that the policy change merely represented a business decision to protect investments in paid commercial messaging services, not an anticompetitive strategy. Meta emphasized that the restrictions do not prevent companies from using AI to enhance customer communications - only from offering AI assistants as their primary service on the platform.

CADE rejected these justifications as insufficient to overcome prima facie evidence of anticompetitive conduct. The authority determined that Meta's rationale relates primarily to merit questions requiring full procedural investigation rather than threshold issues about the conduct's competitive nature.

The interim relief order, carrying daily fines of R$250,000 (approximately $50,000) for non-compliance, suspends the controversial contractual provisions until final resolution or contrary interim decision. Meta must also publicly disclose the ruling on its website within five days and formally notify affected AI providers that they can continue operating on WhatsApp contrary to the announced restrictions.

CADE emphasized several factors supporting the urgent intervention. The conditions for interim relief were clearly met given the imminent January 15 entry into force of the new terms. Allowing the restrictions to proceed would create serious competitive harm that could prove difficult or impossible to remedy after the fact. Once third-party AI providers lose access to their primary user base, market dynamics shift in ways that cannot be easily reversed through subsequent enforcement actions.

The authority specifically addressed Meta's concerns about infrastructure burden and reverse harm. CADE found no credible risk that suspending the policy would damage WhatsApp's operations. Meta had already allowed third-party AI assistants to operate for months after announcing the October restrictions, with an additional three-month grace period for user migration. The suspension merely preserves current operational conditions without imposing new obligations or irreversible commitments on Meta.

Furthermore, any claimed infrastructure issues appear manageable through the January 15 deadline Meta itself established. If the problems were truly critical, the company likely would not have provided such extended transition periods. The measure remains fully reversible - if CADE's investigation ultimately concludes the restrictions are legitimate, they can be implemented at that time without lasting harm to Meta's business.

The Brazilian action closely mirrors Italy's competition authority response to the same Meta policy. Italy's Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (AGCM) imposed precautionary measures December 24, 2025, suspending the WhatsApp Business Solution Terms modifications in Italian territory. The AGCM found that Meta's conduct credibly reflects offensive leveraging, using dominance in messaging to foreclose competition in AI services.

Both authorities emphasized that the exclusion strategy could determine lasting competitive advantages in AI markets at a crucial developmental stage. Meta AI would remain the only chatbot service capable of training with WhatsApp user interaction data while providing increasingly personalized responses. This exclusive access to hundreds of millions of users creates learning advantages that competing AI providers cannot replicate through alternative distribution channels.

The timing carries particular significance given AI markets' nascent state. According to CADE's analysis, preserving competition during these formative stages proves essential because market positions established now will likely persist as network effects and user dependencies solidify. Once users develop functional dependencies on a single AI assistant integrated into their primary communication platform, switching costs increase substantially even if alternative services later become available.

The Brazilian investigation will now proceed through full administrative inquiry. CADE must examine the complete WhatsApp Business Solution Terms and related conditions, analyze the economic rationale and competitive impacts of Meta's restrictions, consult with market participants to better understand relevant markets and competitive dynamics, and review similar investigations in other jurisdictions including Italy and any European Commission proceedings.

This represents a significant expansion of antitrust scrutiny in emerging AI markets. Italy opened antitrust proceedings against Meta on November 26, 2025, examining whether the company abused dominant position by blocking competing AI chatbot services. That investigation expanded existing proceedings that began July 22, 2025.

The European Commission has also intensified oversight of Meta's AI-related practices. Brussels opened formal investigation December 9, 2025 examining Google's AI content practices, with regulators identifying how gatekeepers may establish competitive advantages through infrastructure access and exclusive data partnerships. Meta faces separate Digital Markets Act compliance challenges regarding its advertising model in European markets.

For marketing professionals, these enforcement actions signal growing regulatory attention to how dominant platforms extend market power into adjacent AI services. The cases establish precedent that simply allowing third-party services initially does not immunize subsequent exclusionary conduct. Authorities appear willing to intervene quickly when platform owners with gatekeeper positions attempt to foreclose nascent competitive markets.

The proceedings also highlight tensions between platform business models and antitrust principles. Meta argues it needs flexibility to manage infrastructure and monetize investments through proprietary services. Competition authorities counter that dominant platforms cannot leverage essential access to exclude competitors from adjacent markets, particularly during formative industry stages.

WhatsApp's January 15 implementation of the AI provider ban proceeded globally except in Italy and Brazil, where regulatory orders created exemptions. The platform today implemented restrictions blocking ChatGPT, Perplexity, Microsoft Copilot and similar services from its 3 billion user base. Meta confirmed the policy specifically targets AI model providers distributing assistants rather than businesses using AI for customer service automation.

The regulatory divergence creates operational complexity for both Meta and affected AI providers. Services blocked in most markets can continue operating for Brazilian and Italian users registered with phone numbers from those jurisdictions. This geographic fragmentation of platform policies represents a novel challenge as companies navigate varying antitrust standards across jurisdictions.

Meta faces escalating antitrust challenges across multiple markets and service categories. A U.S. federal judge dismissedthe Federal Trade Commission's monopolization lawsuit November 18, 2025, concluding Meta does not hold monopoly power in social media markets. Judge James Boasberg found that TikTok and YouTube compete directly with Facebook and Instagram, giving Meta insufficient market share to constitute monopoly power under U.S. antitrust law.

The contrasting outcomes between U.S. social media proceedings and Brazilian/Italian messaging market cases highlight jurisdictional differences in market definition and dominance analysis. Courts and regulators reach different conclusions about competitive constraints depending on product scope and geographic reach. WhatsApp's overwhelming market position in Brazil and Europe creates different competitive dynamics than Meta's social media services face in the United States.

Brazil's competition authority has demonstrated increasing sophistication in digital market enforcement. The country's regulatory framework incorporates principles analogous to European competition law while adapting to local market conditions. CADE's willingness to impose interim measures before completing full investigations signals confidence in its analytical frameworks and procedural authority.

The investigation also reflects broader Latin American attention to platform competition issues. Regional authorities increasingly coordinate enforcement approaches and share expertise on digital market cases. Brazil's action may encourage similar scrutiny in other Latin American jurisdictions where WhatsApp maintains dominant positions and Meta AI competes with local and international alternatives.

Technical implementation details remain unclear. CADE ordered Meta to suspend the restrictions and refrain from implementing equivalent measures achieving similar effects. This broad prohibition prevents Meta from circumventing the order through alternative contractual provisions or operational changes that accomplish the same competitive foreclosure.

The daily penalty of R$250,000 reflects both Meta's substantial financial resources and the violation's potential severity. Brazil's competition authority can adjust penalties based on company economic conditions and infraction gravity. The fine structure aims to ensure compliance costs exceed any potential benefits from violating the order.

Meta must now operate dual policy frameworks - maintaining open access for Brazilian users while enforcing restrictions elsewhere. This operational bifurcation creates potential arbitrage opportunities if users can access services through Brazilian registration that remain blocked in other markets. Whether Meta implements technical controls to prevent such workarounds remains uncertain.

The timeline for final resolution extends months or potentially years. Administrative investigations involving complex market analysis, stakeholder consultation, and multi-jurisdictional coordination proceed deliberately. Meta retains full opportunity to present evidence, expert testimony, and legal arguments throughout proceedings. The company can also seek judicial review of any final administrative determination.

Meanwhile, competing AI providers gain temporary reprieve in Brazil's crucial market. Services blocked globally can continue serving Brazilian users, maintaining data flows and user relationships essential for machine learning improvement. This access preservation during investigations may prove competitively decisive if restrictions remain lifted through extended proceedings.

The case establishes important precedent for platform competition enforcement in AI markets. Competition authorities demonstrated willingness to intervene rapidly when dominant platforms attempt leveraging in nascent markets. The burden falls on dominant companies to demonstrate pro-competitive justifications for exclusionary conduct, not on competition authorities to prove harm after market foreclosure occurs.

These principles extend beyond messaging and AI to other platform services where gatekeepers control access to large user bases. Digital advertising, payment services, cloud infrastructure, and content distribution all present similar competitive dynamics where dominant platforms might leverage positions across markets. Regulatory approaches tested in the Meta cases could inform enforcement in these adjacent areas.

For advertisers and marketing technology providers, the proceedings underscore platform dependence risks. Building business models on access to proprietary platforms remains vulnerable to unilateral policy changes. While competition authorities may intervene when dominant platforms abuse positions, lengthy proceedings provide limited protection for affected businesses during investigations.

The Brazilian and Italian actions also signal that global platforms cannot assume regulatory approval or acceptance of business model changes simply because they proceed in some jurisdictions. Different competition authorities reach independent conclusions based on local market conditions, legal frameworks, and enforcement priorities. This regulatory fragmentation creates operational complexity but also limits any single jurisdiction's ability to determine global platform policies.

Looking ahead, the investigations will test how competition law applies to AI market competition during formative stages. Traditional market definition and dominance analysis may require adaptation for rapidly evolving AI services where competitive positions remain fluid. Authorities must balance encouraging innovation and investment against preventing dominant platforms from foreclosing nascent markets.

The outcomes could influence AI industry structure for years to come. If competition authorities consistently prevent dominant platforms from excluding third-party AI services, the market may develop with multiple competing providers accessing various distribution channels. Conversely, if platforms successfully defend restrictions as legitimate business practices, AI markets might consolidate around a few major providers with vertical integration advantages.

Timeline

Summary

Who: Brazil's Administrative Council for Economic Defense (CADE) imposed interim measures affecting Meta Platforms, WhatsApp LLC, and Facebook Serviços Online do Brasil LTDA. The action protects third-party AI service providers including Spain's Factorìa Elcano (Luzia), Colombia's Brainlogic AI (Zapia), OpenAI's ChatGPT, Microsoft's Copilot, and Perplexity from exclusion from WhatsApp's Brazilian user base exceeding 150 million people.

What: CADE suspended Meta's October 2025 modification of WhatsApp Business Solution Terms that would prohibit artificial intelligence service providers from accessing the messaging platform when AI capabilities represent their primary functionality. The authority imposed daily fines of R$250,000 for non-compliance and prohibited Meta from implementing equivalent measures achieving similar competitive effects. The interim measures preserve existing market access for third-party AI assistants pending completion of full administrative inquiry into suspected abuse of dominant position.

When: CADE published its technical note imposing preventive measures January 12, 2026, one day before Meta's planned January 15 global implementation of the AI provider restrictions. The authority opened the procedural preparatory investigation November 26, 2025, following Meta's October 2025 announcement of the policy changes. Italy's competition authority had imposed similar interim measures December 24, 2025, creating precedent CADE cited extensively in its analysis.

Where: The enforcement action applies to Meta's operations throughout Brazilian territory, affecting WhatsApp users registered with Brazilian phone numbers. The decision creates geographic fragmentation as Meta implemented AI provider restrictions globally January 15 except in Brazil and Italy where regulatory orders mandated exemptions. The investigation focuses on Brazil's instant messaging market where WhatsApp maintains overwhelming dominance with 99% smartphone installation rates.

Why: CADE found prima facie evidence that Meta's policy constitutes abuse of dominant position through offensive leveraging - using uncontested market power in messaging to foreclose competition in AI services markets. The authority concluded the total exclusion of third-party AI tools appears disproportionate given less restrictive alternatives and Meta's continued offering of its own Meta AI service. The urgent intervention aims to prevent serious competitive harm from market foreclosure during AI industry formative stages when network effects and user dependencies establish lasting competitive positions.

Share this article
The link has been copied!