It feels like we’re headed for a significant diplomatic conflict over EUs ongoing penalties being issued to American-owned social platforms, as the Trump administration continues to share its dissatisfaction with EU regulations, and social platforms continue to be hit with major penalties.

And those hits just keep on coming, with Meta this week issued an official warning from EU officials over its policies which block the use of rival artificial intelligence assistants on WhatsApp, which is potentially in violation of EU rules around competition and market fairness.

As per the EU Commission: “The European Commission has sent a Statement of Objections to Meta, setting out its preliminary view that Meta breached EU antitrust rules by excluding third-party Artificial Intelligence (‘AI') assistants from accessing and interacting with users on WhatsApp. Meta's conduct risks blocking competitors from entering or expanding in the rapidly growing market for AI assistants.”

The Commission says that on Oct. 15 last year, Meta announced an update to its WhatsApp Business Solution terms, which effectively bans third-party general-purpose AI assistants from the application. “As a result, since 15 January 2026, the only AI assistant available on WhatsApp is Meta's own tool, Meta AI, while competitors have been excluded.”

That’s in breach of EU rules around competition, as it will significantly limit the capacity of third-party AI providers to enter the market, given Meta’s dominant position. As such, Meta is being asked to allow these third-party tools within its app, and to drop this regulation entirely.

The Commission says that it will impose interim measures to prevent Meta’s approach from harming the local market, while it waits for Meta’s response on the matter.

Is that fair?

It’s difficult to say, because while Meta would logically have no interest in helping its competitors gain any traction in the EU market, there is an argument to be made that Meta’s dominant position will stifle all competition if it’s allowed to implement such measures.

But on the other hand, the EU Commission has an ongoing history of expansive rules that dictate what social media companies can and can’t do, in relation to data gathering, ad targeting, moderation, censorship, etc. There are so many rules, which are constantly changing, that it’s almost impossible for social platforms to keep up, and at least some of those rules do seem designed to extract money from U.S.-based tech giants, as opposed to protecting the rights of EU citizens.

Which is not uncommon. Most nations have at least attempted to implement taxes and penalties in order to force social media platforms to pay more into their local economy, with some seeking to, say, charge platforms for using local publisher content, under questionable provisions.

The main impetus seems to be that these social media platforms have become so dominant, and so influential, that they’ve impacted the local economy, and in particular, the local digital ads market, and therefore, local providers have pushed for politicians to make them pay, somehow, in order to offset losses.

Those penalties have come in different forms, and most of those applications are justifiable, at least from some perspective. But it does feel like at least some of these pushes are just straight up cash grabs, seeking to limit the amount of money that American social media giants can extract from their local economy.

In this respect, many of these could be countered by improved taxation, and ensuring that companies operating within a nation are being taxed at the right rate. Meta, like most major corporations, will seek to minimize its tax burden where possible by basing its regional offices in nearby tax havens, but in some cases, local governments could push to have Meta taxed under their rules, which would see more shared back into the local economy.

Though that comes with its own complications, while it’s also a vote-winner for politicians to come out and say that they’re making social media providers pay for specific ills, due to the perception of harm by social media apps.

I don’t pretend to know the complexities of each specific situation in each region, but it does seem like at least some of the regulations that are forced onto Meta, and other social media providers, are motivated by money more than safety.

And in some cases, the Trump team views things the same way, with various Trump administration officials criticizing foreign penalties for social media apps.

I mean, they seem more likely to respond to penalties enacted on X, given Elon Musk’s close relationship with the Trump team. But Meta has also been cozying up to Trump however it can, in order to gain more beneficial treatment, and potentially, more high-powered support for its push back against foreign penalties.

The EU Commission would be the prime target in this respect, and with Meta facing yet another major fine, it does seem like the U.S. government will be called upon to oppose such, and potentially threaten retaliatory trade measures in response.

Meta is currently being fined over $1 billion dollars per year in Europe on average, while X is also facing new penalties over its recent Grok controversies.

Will that lead to a bigger diplomatic conflict in future?