The new frontier of digital power

Source: Corriere della Sera – “AI on WhatsApp, the EU accuses Meta. The metaverse, Zuckerberg’s flop”, 5 December 2025

Meta, WhatsApp and the suspicion of a monopoly over conversational AI

The Corriere della Sera article describes yet another chapter in the ongoing confrontation between Meta and the European authorities. Following the rollout of Meta AI on WhatsApp, Brussels suspects that the company is leveraging its dominant position to impose its integrated chatbot and to obstruct any competing solutions.

According to the European Commission, the new contractual terms of WhatsApp Business Solution effectively — de facto or de jure — prevent external providers of AI-based services from competing in the messaging market. If confirmed, this conduct would create a structural barrier allowing Meta to control:

• the channel (WhatsApp),

• the tool (Meta AI),

• and the access infrastructure for businesses and users.

A combination which, in the EU’s view, could amount to an abuse of a dominant position aimed at monopolising the emerging conversational AI sector.

A non-disableable AI: the problem of forced integration

A crucial element of the accusation concerns the fact that Meta AI has been introduced into WhatsApp as a feature that cannot be fully disabled, or can only be disabled in part, directly affecting the user experience. The Commission fears that this model:

• limits freedom of choice,

• creates dependency on a single ecosystem,

• and prevents the development of alternative solutions.

This logic echoes patterns already seen in previous antitrust proceedings: when a platform becomes too large, every technical integration acquires political and economic significance. It is no longer just a feature — it is an act of infrastructural power.

The metaverse in crisis and Meta’s strategic shift

At the same time, the article recalls the failure of the metaverse project, which has cost Meta billions in investments and is now expected to be significantly scaled back. According to analysts and financial sources, the company is shifting its strategic focus away from the “immersive internet” toward artificial intelligence embedded within social and messaging platforms.

The risk highlighted by European institutions is that this “strategic reconversion” may turn into a race to occupy every available space in the AI market, using WhatsApp’s enormous user base as an anti-competitive lever.

When a platform becomes too large to be neutral

The central issue — which clearly emerges from the Meta case — concerns the very nature of digital platforms. With more than two billion users, WhatsApp is no longer merely a messaging service: it is a global social infrastructure. Any modification introduced within it has systemic effects:

• it reshapes the digital services ecosystem,

• conditions competition,

• influences communication habits,

• and determines which innovations will be able to emerge and which will be suppressed.

When the infrastructure is private but its function is public, regulation becomes inevitable.

Why this matters for citizens and how Algopolio intervenes

The forced introduction of Meta AI into WhatsApp is not only a competition issue: it affects how users interact, share information and build their digital identity.

The main risks for individuals include:

• loss of control over the technologies they use every day,

• exposure to non-transparent AI systems,

• inability to choose equivalent alternatives,

• increasingly pervasive profiling.

Algopolio operates precisely within these grey areas of digital power by:

• providing support to users and companies affected by unfair practices of dominant platforms,

• monitoring the risks of infrastructural abuse by Big Tech,

• promoting models of protection and transparency in conversational technologies,

• defending users’ right to a pluralistic and competitive digital ecosystem.

If anyone believes they have suffered harm, pressure or limitations arising from the use of WhatsApp or other Meta services, Algopolio can analyse the case, offer tools for protection and also assess potential collective initiatives.

Because digital power should not be passively endured: it must be understood, regulated and — when necessary — challenged.