Brazil's antitrust authority ruled that Meta must open WhatsApp AI interface, prohibiting it from blocking third-party chatbots, marking the beginning of a mandatory open era for major global platforms and reshaping the competitive landscape of AI services.
In a regulatory ruling with global implications, Meta has been compelled to allow third-party AI companies to offer chatbot services to Brazilian users via WhatsApp. This significant policy shift, effective March 6, 2026, stems directly from the final rejection of Meta's appeal by Brazil's Economic Defense Council (CADE).
CADE, Brazil's highest antitrust authority, determined that Meta's previous policy of prohibiting external AI chatbots from accessing WhatsApp lacked justification. It explicitly stated that, given WhatsApp's dominant position in the Brazilian instant messaging market, unilaterally blocking third-party services would constitute unfair competition and severely stifle the development of an innovative ecosystem. This ruling not only ends Meta's legal defense but also echoes a similar decision by European regulators a day earlier, marking a new era of mandatory openness for major global messaging platforms.
Faced with an irreversible legal requirement, Meta announced that it will open its WhatsApp Business API to vetted third-party AI providers, but not without charge. Starting March 11, 2026, Meta will charge $0.0625 per non-template message sent by external chatbots. The company stated that the API was not originally designed for high-concurrency AI interactions, and hosting such services would place significant strain on the system. The fee is intended to cover operating costs.
The root of this dispute dates back to October of last year, when Meta first announced restrictions on third-party AI access, immediately drawing attention from regulatory agencies in multiple countries. The core conflict lies in the fact that Meta directly integrates its own AI assistant, Meta AI, within WhatsApp, while preventing competitors from using the same channel. This practice of 'being both the referee and the player' has been widely criticized as leveraging platform dominance to exclude external innovators. This ruling represents a powerful check on the abuse of platform power by regulators.
0 comment A文章作者M管理员
No Comments Yet. Be the first to share what you think
❯
Profile
Search
Checking in, please wait...
Click for today's check-in bonus!
You have earned {{mission.data.mission.credit}} points today