Updated 2 November 2026: checked against the Competition Authority's announcements, Law No. 4054, and the Italian and European Commission releases, with sources now linked. The decision was announced by the Authority itself on 5 June 2026, not first through the press. Its numbers are 26-18/536-M (investigation) and 26-18/536-193 (interim measure). The account of the European case now includes Meta's paid-access revision of March 2026 and the five-working-day deadline. The claim that Türkiye was among the first to intervene, the description of WhatsApp's reach in Türkiye, the claim that users "may continue" to reach rival assistants, and passages that repeated the same point have been removed. Whether Meta has complied is not public. Meta's appeal against the Commission's order has been added.

Correction (19 October 2026): The original version described the European Commission's case only as an investigation; it has been updated to add that on 9 June 2026 the Commission adopted its own interim measures ordering Meta to restore rival AI assistants' access to WhatsApp.

On 14 May 2026 Türkiye's Competition Board opened a full investigation into Meta and, at the same meeting, ordered interim measures concerning rival AI assistants on WhatsApp. The Competition Authority announced the decision on 5 June 2026. An interim measure is temporary. The Board has not found that Meta broke the law, and the investigation continues.

What did the Competition Board decide?

The Board took two decisions. By decision 26-18/536-M it opened an investigation, under Article 41 of Law No. 4054, into Meta Platforms, Inc., Meta Platforms Ireland Limited, WhatsApp LLC and Meta Platforms İstanbul Bilişim Hizmetleri Limited Şirketi, treated as one economic unit. The question is whether Meta infringed Article 6, the ban on abusing a dominant position, by building Meta AI into WhatsApp and preventing third-party AI providers from offering services through WhatsApp.

The Board also found, after a preliminary inquiry, that blocking third-party general-purpose generative AI chatbots from offering AI as their primary service on WhatsApp is serious evidence of an infringement. By decision 26-18/536-193 it ordered Meta to set conditions that allow these services, in a way that does not make them practically or economically difficult to offer. The Authority's English notice gives one month from service of the reasoned decision, after which fines under Article 17 apply. We also summarise the decision in our decision note.

Which WhatsApp terms are at issue?

The dispute concerns the WhatsApp Business Solution, the interface companies use to talk to customers on WhatsApp. According to the European Commission, Meta's policy announced in October 2025 bars AI providers from using it when AI is the primary service offered. AI for ancillary tasks, such as automated customer support, stays allowed. The policy applied to new AI providers from 15 October 2025 and to existing ones from 15 January 2026, while Meta AI remained available.

How did the Board reason?

The full text of the interim decision could not be found on the Authority's site, so this section relies on a law-firm summary published on 26 August 2026. It is secondary and should be read as such.

  • Market and dominance. The summary says the Board defined a market for consumer communication services in Türkiye and considered Meta dominant there, citing user base, engagement, network effects and switching barriers.
  • AI market. It says the Board left the definition open, referring to a potential market for general-purpose generative AI chatbots and assistants.
  • Harm. It says the Board saw WhatsApp as an important distribution channel, and possibly close to indispensable for providers built on third-party platforms. Meta AI could gain users and data while rivals were shut out.
  • Price of access. It says the Board referred to the Commission's concern that per-message charges can work like a ban, and shaped its order to cover economic obstacles too.

What have Italy and the European Commission done?

Both have ordered interim measures against the same conduct, on different terms.

  • Italy. The competition authority opened its case in July 2025, widened it on 25 November 2025 and, in a release of 24 December 2025, ordered Meta to suspend the terms immediately.
  • European Commission. It opened proceedings in December 2025, covering the EEA except Italy. In its release of 9 June 2026 (case AT.41034) it says that Meta readmitted rival assistants on 4 March 2026 for a fee which, at first sight, works like the earlier ban. It ordered access restored on the terms in place before 15 October 2025, when access was free, within five working days and until a final decision.

The Turkish wording differs. As announced, it does not set the earlier terms or free access as the standard. It requires conditions that do not make the service practically or economically difficult to offer. How that test applies to a fee is one of the case's open points.

Meta disputes the European case. In a statement reported in April 2026, a spokesperson said: "Small European businesses shouldn't foot OpenAI's bill." According to the law firm advising it, Meta filed an appeal at the General Court of the EU in August 2026 against the Commission's interim decision. No public statement by Meta on the Turkish order was found.

Which provisions of Law No. 4054 apply?

The Board relies on Articles 6, 9 and 17, and the case could also engage Articles 16, 43 and 55.

  • Article 6 bans abuse of a dominant position. Being dominant is not unlawful in itself. The list of abuses includes making it harder for competitors to operate.
  • Article 9(4) allows interim measures where serious and irreparable harm may arise before the final decision. They must protect the position before the infringement and must not go beyond what the final decision could order.
  • Article 17 provides a fine for each day an interim measure is not followed, of five ten-thousandths of annual gross revenue.
  • Article 16 allows a fine of up to ten per cent of annual gross revenue if an infringement is found.
  • Article 43 sets six months for the investigation, extendable once by up to six months. It also provides for commitments and settlement.
  • Article 55 says that going to court does not suspend a Board decision. An action against an administrative sanction goes to the competent administrative court.

Has the Board acted against Meta before?

Yes. The notices we read record two earlier interim measures. In January 2021 it opened an investigation and suspended the data-sharing conditions WhatsApp had set for users in Türkiye. In February 2024 it ordered Meta to stop combining Threads and Instagram data. The Authority records that Meta then suspended Threads in Türkiye, was fined for the period of non-compliance and offered commitments, made binding in November 2024. On 10 June 2026 the Board found Meta's plan to relaunch Threads consistent with those commitments.

The Board has also examined self-preferencing by Google, for example in local search and shopping comparison.

Would the Digital Markets Act or a Turkish equivalent change this?

Not on the facts as they stand. The EU's Digital Markets Act sets rules for designated gatekeepers without proof of abuse, and WhatsApp is designated. Its Article 7 concerns interoperability between messaging services. It does not squarely address AI chatbots using a business interface, and the Commission opened this case under Article 102 TFEU.

In Türkiye, a draft amendment to Law No. 4054 for digital markets has been discussed by practitioners, but the consolidated text on mevzuat.gov.tr contains no such rule. Its current parliamentary status could not be confirmed.

Does opening WhatsApp raise data protection questions?

Yes, though the Board's announcement does not address them. A provider serving users in Türkiye through WhatsApp must comply with Türkiye's data protection law (KVKK, Law No. 6698): a legal basis under Articles 5 and 6, a notice under Article 10, security under Article 12 and the transfer rules in Article 9. Our guide to KVKK and AI governance sets these out. A platform may also cite privacy or security to justify a restriction, and an authority will ask whether the reason is genuine and necessary.

What does this mean in practice?

  • AI providers should not assume access on any particular terms. The order sets a standard, not a price, and Meta's implementation is not public. Transparency and data protection duties apply either way.
  • Platforms with their own AI service can take from this case that a change to business terms may itself be examined as conduct under competition law, especially when the platform's own product is unaffected.
  • Businesses using AI only for ancillary tasks, such as customer support, are outside the restriction as the Commission describes it.

How could the investigation end?

The law leaves four routes open.

  • No infringement. The case closes and the measure ends.
  • Commitments. Under Article 43 the Board may make commitments binding and end the investigation. They are not accepted for open and serious violations between competitors, such as price fixing, a category that does not describe this case.
  • Settlement. The party admits the infringement and receives a reduced fine.
  • Infringement decision. The Board may fine Meta under Article 16 and order behavioural measures under Article 9, subject to judicial review.

What to watch next

Four points are not yet public: whether the reasoned decision has been served and when the month ended (the law-firm summary of August 2026 describes its reasoning, but not the date of service); what conditions Meta has set in Türkiye and whether the Board accepts them; whether Meta has sued; and whether the investigation report, due within the Article 43 period, adopts the interim reasoning. In Europe, the merits of the Commission's and the Italian cases and Meta's General Court appeal are still open, and the outcome may influence the terms discussed here. The wider policy setting in Türkiye is the 2026-2030 AI Action Plan.

Frequently asked questions

Has the Competition Board found that Meta broke the law?

No. The Board opened an investigation and imposed an interim measure on 14 May 2026. It described the evidence as serious, but a finding of infringement can come only in a final decision after Meta has presented its defence.

What exactly must Meta do in Türkiye?

According to the Competition Authority's notice, Meta must set conditions allowing third-party general-purpose generative AI chatbots to offer AI through WhatsApp as a primary service, without making this practically or economically difficult. It has one month from service of the reasoned decision.

What happens if Meta does not comply?

Article 17 of Law No. 4054 provides a fine for each day of non-compliance, of five ten-thousandths of annual gross revenue. The Board fined Meta for non-compliance with the Threads interim measure in 2024.

Can Meta challenge the decision?

Yes, before the competent administrative court. Under Article 55 of Law No. 4054, an action does not by itself suspend a Board decision. No public record of a challenge was found as of 2 November 2026.

Are other authorities looking at the same conduct?

Yes. Italy's competition authority ordered Meta to suspend the terms in December 2025, and the European Commission ordered free access restored on 9 June 2026. Both are interim, both investigations continue, and Meta has appealed the Commission's order, according to its law firm. A law-firm summary says Brazil's authority has also adopted interim measures.

Burhan Doğuş Ayparlar's View

This section sets out my personal assessment as the founder of this site and an attorney at law (Türkiye).

The decision recognises something simple: in AI, the valuable asset may be the shortest path to the user. When a platform at the centre of daily communication closes that path to rivals while keeping its own assistant inside, I think competition law has good reason to step in early. A final decision reached years later could come after the market has already settled.

Interim measures are still a blunt tool. Meta's arguments about its systems and costs deserve a real hearing, and "access" must be defined so that it works technically and creates no new privacy or security risk. In my view the best outcome would be transparent, non-discriminatory conditions that apply equally to Meta AI and to third parties, ideally through commitments.

I also think the case supports a clear, predictable digital-markets framework in Türkiye, so that fairness in AI distribution does not depend on case-by-case intervention alone.

Sources: Competition Authority notices of 5 June 2026, 23 June 2026 and 11 January 2021; Law No. 4054 (consolidated text); European Commission releases IP/25/2896 and IP/26/1276; Italian competition authority release A576 (24 December 2025); Regulation (EU) 2022/1925; law-firm summaries on Legal 500 (secondary); press report of Meta's statement (15 April 2026); Slaughter and May notice on Meta's appeal (25 August 2026; the firm acts for Meta). All read on 2 November 2026. The reasoned decision itself was not available to us. Whether it has been served, whether Meta has complied or sued, and the status of the digital-markets draft could not be confirmed. General information, not legal advice. The assessments are the author's own.