The decision
The Commission’s ongoing investigation concerns Meta’s October 2025 WhatsApp policy change, which left only Meta’s own product (Meta AI) accessible on the platform. When Meta revised the policy in March 2026 by readmitting rival AI assistants for a fee, the Commission concluded that this was equivalent in effect to the original ban. The interim measures require Meta to reinstate access for competing AI assistants on the pre-October 2025 terms – notably, free of charge – until the Commission adopts a final decision.
Historical context: the Commission’s sparing use of interim measures
Interim measures are provisional measures that can be adopted by the Commission to address urgent competition concerns before the conclusion of a full investigation. To impose such measures, the Commission must establish a prima facie competition law infringement – such as an abuse of dominance in the Meta case – and demonstrate a risk of serious and irreparable harm to competition.
Although interim measures are a more common feature of enforcement at national level, particularly in France, the Commission has historically been reluctant to use them. The most recent occasions were the Broadcom case in 2019 and the IMS Health case back in 2001. The latter saw the Commission’s order to license a pharmaceutical data structure suspended by the General Court. This experience most likely contributed to nearly two decades of dormancy.
A signal of changing enforcement philosophy
The decision does not come as a surprise to close observers. Former Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager had acknowledged that the Commission was studying interim measures, and questioned why they had not been used. She later declared the 2019 Broadcom decision “a sign of things to come”, emphasising that she did not “expect to wait another 18 years” before deploying the measures again.
The Meta decision also feeds into the ongoing revision of the legal framework governing the Commission’s enforcement powers. A 2024 study reported calls for greater use of interim measures and suggestions that the current threshold was too high. The Meta case will serve as a test case: if the decision stands, especially after judicial review, it may demonstrate that existing powers are adequate, including in fast-moving digital markets. If overturned, it will strengthen the case for reform.
Complementary enforcement: competition law and the Digital Markets Act
Finally, the decision underscores the Commission’s determination to enforce competition rules in digital markets alongside the Digital Markets Act (DMA). While the DMA imposes ex ante obligations on designated gatekeepers in respect of core platform services, AI assistants do not fall squarely within the DMA’s scope – or at least not yet. The Commission’s resort to competition law demonstrates that competition rules remain an indispensable complement to the DMA, capable of reaching conduct and markets that the newer regulatory framework does not yet cover.
What this means for businesses
The decision underscores the need for rigorous ex ante assessment of commercial policies and any changes to them, particularly those affecting third-party access to platforms or ecosystems, including in areas not covered by the DMA. For competitors facing exclusionary practices, especially those in emerging and fast developing markets, the decision offers hope that interim measures may provide effective and timely relief. Complainants who can substantiate a clear violation of competition law and demonstrate urgency may succeed in obtaining protective orders.
The Commission’s decision in the Meta case sends a clear signal. This is not just a single enforcement action, but rather a statement of intent. It demonstrates that the Commission is prepared to act swiftly, particularly in emerging tech sectors such as AI; that its historically dormant interim measures power is very much alive; and that enforcement in digital markets is not left exclusively to the DMA.