On 17 February 2026, the COMESA Competition and Consumer Commission (CCCC) formally launched an antitrust investigation into Meta Platforms Ireland Limited. The central allegation under review is whether Meta is abusing its dominant market position by allegedly restricting third-party Artificial Intelligence (AI) developers from accessing the WhatsApp Business ecosystem.
For the 21 COMESA member states, this inquiry touches on critical questions of digital sovereignty and the operational reality for local tech startups. With a 16 March 2026 deadline for stakeholders to submit written representations, the tech community is watching closely to see how the regional bloc handles this complex digital dispute.
The CCCC’s official notice explicitly states: “The commencement of investigations neither presupposes that the conduct being investigated is anticompetitive nor that Meta has violated the Regulations.”
Digital Lockout:
To understand the mechanics of this dispute, we must look at the technical chokepoint: the WhatsApp Business Application Programming Interface (API).
Imagine a massive, pan-African digital marketplace. WhatsApp owns the digital roads, the storefronts, and the core infrastructure. Historically, local merchants operating on these digital streets could hire any specialised digital assistant they wanted—perhaps a third-party AI chatbot developed in Kenya or Egypt to handle specific regional commerce queries. The API acted as the “staff door,” allowing these independent AI assistants to connect with customers seamlessly.
According to a formal complaint lodged by the competition practice group AdLegal on 5 January 2026, Meta’s recent actions have effectively closed this door to outsiders. The CCCC received information that on 15 October 2025, Meta unilaterally updated its WhatsApp Business Solution Terms. The Commission suspects these new terms effectively ban businesses from using the API if their core service relies on general-purpose AI models provided by third parties, while preserving preferential access for Meta’s own tool, Meta AI.
The Developer’s Concern:
This policy shift moves beyond abstract competition law; it touches on the flow of capital and the viability of local engineering.
Consider a scenario involving an African tech firm that has just raised KES 150 million in seed funding to build a highly specialised, localised customer service bot for SMEs. In many COMESA markets, WhatsApp is the definitive medium for e-commerce.
If a platform restricts API access, local developers argue they are instantly severed from their primary distribution channel. Critics of the policy change argue that by forcing reliance on Meta AI, the tech giant could stifle competition in its infancy, severely limiting the choices available to African businesses and consumers. The CCCC’s investigation aims to determine if this conduct truly has the object or effect of “preventing, restricting or distorting competition,” which would be a violation of Regulation 36 of the COMESA Competition and Consumer Protection Regulations, 2025.
The Privacy Paradox:
A legally sound and critically balanced view requires examining Meta’s operational reality. While Meta has not yet published its formal COMESA defence, its posture in parallel global disputes provides crucial context. The company’s defence generally centres on two legitimate technical pillars: user privacy and platform integrity.
- Security and Encryption: Meta’s core consumer promise is end-to-end encryption. The company has historically argued that allowing unrestricted, third-party AI bots to siphon and process user chat data via the API introduces massive security vulnerabilities and breaks privacy promises.
- System Integrity and Spam: Third-party bots can be manipulated to generate automated spam networks at scale. Meta maintains that WhatsApp’s Business platform was built for direct business-to-customer communications, not for independent AI services acting as unmonitored third-party “apps” within WhatsApp.
By centralising AI functionalities through its own tightly monitored Meta AI, Meta argues it can enforce stringent safety guardrails. The regulatory challenge for COMESA is weighing these valid technical and privacy concerns against the undeniable exclusionary effect the policy has on competitors.
A Coordinated Global Crackdown:
COMESA’s probe is not occurring in a vacuum; it is part of a synchronised global regulatory response to the 15 October 2025 policy update:
- The European Union: On 9 February 2026, the European Commission issued a formal Statement of Objections, warning Meta that the policy change appears, at first sight, to breach EU competition rules, and proposed interim measures to halt the exclusion.
- Italy: The Italian Competition Authority (AGCM) ordered an emergency suspension of the policy in December 2025, citing the risk of irreversible market damage.
- Brazil: Brazil’s antitrust body (CADE) initially suspended the terms via an injunction on 12 January 2026. However, highlighting the legal complexities of these cases, Meta successfully appealed and overturned CADE’s injunction on 23 January 2026.
As the CCCC prepares to assess the evidence, this investigation stands as a monumental test of whether an African regulatory body can successfully navigate the delicate balance between platform security and open market competition.
