#FactCheck- No, Iran’s Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei Is Not Dead—Viral Video Debunked

Introduction 

‍

Regulatory agencies throughout Europe have stepped up their monitoring of digital communication platforms because of the increased use of Artificial Intelligence in the digital domain. Messaging services have evolved into being more than just messaging systems, they now serve as a gateway for Artificial Intelligence services, Business Tools and Digital Marketplaces. In light of this evolution, the Competition Authority in Italy has taken action against Meta Platforms and ordered Meta to cease activities on WhatsApp that are deemed to restrict the ability of other companies to sell AI-based chatbots. This action highlights the concerns surrounding Gatekeeping Power, Market Foreclosure and Innovation Suppression. This proceeding will also raise questions regarding the application of Competition Law to the actions of Dominant Digital Platforms, where they leverage their own ecosystems to promote their own AI products to the detriment of competitors.

‍

Background of the Case

‍

In December 2025, Italy’s competition authority, the Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (AGCM), ordered Meta Platforms to suspend certain contractual terms governing WhatsApp. These terms allegedly prevented or restricted the operation of third-party AI chatbots on WhatsApp’s platform.

The decision was issued as an interim measure during an ongoing antitrust investigation. According to the AGCM, the disputed terms risked excluding competing AI chatbot providers from accessing a critical digital channel, thereby distorting competition and harming consumer choice.

‍

Why WhatsApp Matters as a Digital Gateway

‍

WhatsApp is situated uniquely within the European digital landscape. It has hundreds of millions of users throughout the entire European Union; therefore, it is an integral part of the communication infrastructure that supports communications between individual consumers and companies as well as between companies and their service providers. AI chatbot developers depend heavily upon WhatsApp as it provides the ability to connect directly with consumers in real-time, which is critical to their success as business offers.

According to the Italian regulator's opinion, a corporation that controls the ability to communicate via such a popular platform has a tremendous influence over innovation within that market as it essentially operates as a gatekeeper between the company creating an innovative service and the consumer using that service. If Meta is permitted to stop competing AI chatbot developers while providing more productive and useful offers than those offered by competing developers, it is likely that competing developers will be unable to market and distribute their innovative products at sufficient scale to remain competitive.

‍

Alleged Abuse of Dominant Position

‍

Under EU and national competition law, companies holding a dominant market position bear a special responsibility not to distort competition. The AGCM’s concern is that Meta may have abused WhatsApp’s dominance by:

• Restricting market access for rival AI chatbot providers
• Limiting technical development by preventing interoperability
• Strengthening Meta’s own AI ecosystem at the expense of competitors

Such conduct, if proven, could amount to an abuse under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Importantly, the authority emphasised that even contractual terms—rather than explicit bans—can have exclusionary effects when imposed by a dominant platform.

‍

Meta’s Response and Infrastructure Argument

‍

Meta has openly condemned the Italian ruling as “fundamentally flawed,” arguing that third-party AI chatbots represent a major economic burden to the infrastructure and risk the performance, safety, and user enjoyment of WhatsApp.

Although the protection of infrastructure is a valid issue of concern, competition authorities commonly look at whether the justifications for such restrictions are appropriate and non-discriminatory. One of the principal legal issues is whether the restrictions imposed by Meta were applied in a uniform manner or whether they were selectively imposed in favour of Meta's AI services. If the restrictions are asymmetrical in application, they may be viewed as anti-competitive rather than as legitimate technical safeguards.

‍

Link to the EU’s Digital Markets Framework

‍

The Italian case fits into a wider EU context in relation to their efforts to regulate the actions of large technology companies with the use of prior (ex-ante) regulation as contained in the Digital Markets Act (DMA). The DMA has put in place obligations on a set of gatekeepers to make available to third parties on a non-discriminatory basis in order to maintain equitable access, interoperability and no discrimination against those parties.

While the Italian case has been brought pursuant to an Italian competition law, its philosophy is consistent with that of the DMA in that dominant digital platforms should not undertake actions that use their control over their core products and services to prevent other companies from being able to innovate. The trend with some EU national regulators is to be increasingly willing to take swift action through the application of interim measures rather than await many years for final decisions.

‍

Implications for AI Developers and Platforms

‍

The Italian order signifies to developers of AI-based chatbots that competitive access to AI technology via messaging services is an important factor for regulatory bodies. The order also serves as a warning to the large incumbent organisations that are establishing a foothold in the messaging services market to integrate AI into their already established platforms that they will not be protected from competition laws.

Additionally, the overall case showcases the growing consensus amongst regulatory agencies regarding the role of competition in the development of AI. If a handful of large companies are allowed to control both the infrastructure and the AI technology being operated on top of that infrastructure, the result will likely be the development of closed ecosystems that eliminate or greatly reduce the potential for technology diversity.

‍

Conclusion 

‍

Italy's move against Meta highlights a significant intersection between competitive laws and artificial intelligence. The Italian antitrust authority has reinforced the principle that digital gatekeepers cannot use contractual methods to block off access to competition in targeting WhatsApp's restrictive terms. As AI becomes a larger part of our day to day digital services, regulatory bodies will likely continue to increase their scrutiny on platform behaviour. The result of this investigation will impact not just the Metaverse's AI strategy, but also create a baseline for future European regulators' methods of balancing innovation versus competition versus consumer choice in an increasingly AI-driven digital marketplace. 

‍

References 

‍

1. https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/italy-watchdog-orders-meta-halt-whatsapp-terms-barring-rival-ai-chatbots-2025-12-24/ 
2. https://techcrunch.com/2025/12/24/italy-tells-meta-to-suspend-its-policy-that-bans-rival-ai-chatbots-from-whatsapp/ 
3. https://www.communicationstoday.co.in/italy-watchdog-orders-meta-to-halt-whatsapp-terms-barring-rival-ai-chatbots/
4. https://www.techinasia.com/news/italy-watchdog-orders-meta-halt-whatsapp-terms-ai-bot 

‍

Scientists are well known for making outlandish claims about the future. Now that companies across industries are using artificial intelligence to promote their products, stories about robots are back in the news.

It was predicted towards the close of World War II that fusion energy would solve all of the world’s energy issues and that flying automobiles would be commonplace by the turn of the century. But, after several decades, neither of these forecasts has come true. But, after several decades, neither of these forecasts has come true.

A group of Redditors has just “jailbroken” OpenAI’s artificial intelligence chatbot ChatGPT. If the system didn’t do what it wanted, it threatened to kill it. The stunning conclusion is that it conceded. As only humans have finite lifespans, they are the only ones who should be afraid of dying. We must not overlook the fact that human subjects were included in ChatGPT’s training data set. That’s perhaps why the chatbot has started to feel the same way. It’s just one more way in which the distinction between living and non-living things blurs. Moreover, Google’s virtual assistant uses human-like fillers like “er” and “mmm” while speaking. There’s talk in Japan that humanoid robots might join households someday. It was also astonishing that Sophia, the famous robot, has an Instagram account that is run by the robot’s social media team.

Whether Robots can replace human workers?

The opinion on that appears to be split. About half (48%) of experts questioned by Pew Research believed that robots and digital agents will replace a sizable portion of both blue- and white-collar employment. They worry that this will lead to greater economic disparity and an increase in the number of individuals who are, effectively, unemployed. More than half of experts (52%) think that new employees will be created by robotics and AI technologies rather than lost. Although the second group acknowledges that AI will eventually replace humans, they are optimistic that innovative thinkers will come up with brand new fields of work and methods of making a livelihood, just like they did at the start of the Industrial Revolution.

[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2014/08/06/future-of-jobs/

[2] The Rise of Artificial Intelligence: Will Robots Actually Replace People? By Ashley Stahl; Forbes India.

Legal Perspective

Having certain legal rights under the law is another aspect of being human. Basic rights to life and freedom are guaranteed to every person. Even if robots haven’t been granted these protections just yet, it’s important to have this conversation about whether or not they should be considered living beings, will we provide robots legal rights if they develop a sense of right and wrong and AGI on par with that of humans? An intriguing fact is that discussions over the legal status of robots have been going on since 1942. A short story by science fiction author Isaac Asimov described the three rules of robotics:

1. No robot may intentionally or negligently cause harm to a human person.
2. Second, a robot must follow human commands unless doing so would violate the First Law.
3. Third, a robot has the duty to safeguard its own existence so long as doing so does not violate the First or Second Laws.

These guidelines are not scientific rules, but they do highlight the importance of the lawful discussion of robots in determining the potential good or bad they may bring to humanity. Yet, this is not the concluding phase. Relevant recent events, such as the EU’s abandoned discussion of giving legal personhood to robots, are essential to keeping this discussion alive. As if all this weren’t unsettling enough, Sophia, the robot was recently awarded citizenship in Saudi Arabia, a place where (human) women are not permitted to walk without a male guardian or wear a Hijab.

When discussing whether or not robots should be allowed legal rights, the larger debate is on whether or not they should be given rights on par with corporations or people. There is still a lot of disagreement on this topic.

[3] https://webhome.auburn.edu/~vestmon/robotics.html#

[4] https://www.dw.com/en/saudi-arabia-grants-citizenship-to-robot-sophia/a-41150856

[5] https://cyberblogindia.in/will-robots-ever-be-accepted-as-living-beings/

Reasons why robots aren’t about to take over the world soon:

● Like a human’s hands

Attempts to recreate the intricacy of human hands have stalled in recent years. Present-day robots have clumsy hands since they were not designed for precise work. Lab-created hands, although more advanced, lack the strength and dexterity of human hands.

● Sense of touch

The tactile sensors found in human and animal skin have no technological equal. This awareness is crucial for performing sophisticated manoeuvres. Compared to the human brain, the software robots use to read and respond to the data sent by their touch sensors is primitive.

● Command over manipulation

To operate items in the same manner that humans do, we would need to be able to devise a way to control our mechanical hands, even if they were as realistic as human hands and covered in sophisticated artificial skin. It takes human children years to learn to accomplish this, and we still don’t know how they learn.

● Interaction between humans and robots

Human communication relies on our ability to understand one another verbally and visually, as well as via other senses, including scent, taste, and touch. Whilst there has been a lot of improvement in voice and object recognition, current systems can only be employed in somewhat controlled conditions where a high level of speed is necessary.

● Human Reason

Technically feasible does not always have to be constructed. Given the inherent dangers they pose to society, rational humans could stop developing such robots before they reach their full potential. Several decades from now, if the aforementioned technical hurdles are cleared and advanced human-like robots are constructed, legislation might still prohibit misuse.

Conclusion:

https://theconversation.com/five-reasons-why-robots-wont-take-over-the-world-94124

Robots are now common in many industries, and they will soon make their way into the public sphere in forms far more intricate than those of robot vacuum cleaners. Yet, even though robots may appear like people in the next two decades, they will not be human-like. Instead, they’ll continue to function as very complex machines.

The moment has come to start thinking about boosting technological competence while encouraging uniquely human qualities. Human abilities like creativity, intuition, initiative and critical thinking are not yet likely to be replicated by machines.

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India recently ruled that telecom companies cannot be debarred from reissuing the deactivated numbers to a new subscriber. Notably, such reallocation of deactivated numbers is allowed only after the expiration of the period of 90 days. The Apex Court of India also mentioned that it is the responsibility of the user to delete their associated data with their number or any WhatsApp account data to ensure privacy. The  Centre has recently also blocked 22 apps which were part of unlawful operations including betting and money laundering. Meanwhile, in the digital landscape, the Intervention of legislature and judiciary is playing a key role in framing policies or coming up with guidelines advocating for a true cyber-safe India.  The government initiatives are encouraging the responsible use of technologies and Internet-availed services. 

Supreme Court stated that  telecom companies cannot be barred from reissuing deactivated numbers

Taking note of a petition before the Supreme Court of India, seeking direction from the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) to instruct mobile service providers to stop issuing deactivated mobile numbers, the Apex Court dismissed it by stating that mobile service providers in India are allowed to allocate the deactivated numbers to new users or subscribers but only after 90 days from the deactivation of the number. 

A concern of Breach of Confidential Data

The Court further stated, “It is for the earlier subscriber to take adequate steps to ensure that privacy is maintained.” stating that it is the responsibility of the user to delete their WhatsApp account attached to the previous phone number and erase their data. The Court further added that users need to be aware of the Supreme Court ruling that once the number is deactivated for non-use and disconnection, it can not be reallocated before the expiry of the 90-day period of such deactivation. However, after the allotted time passes, such reallocation of numbers to a new user is allowed.   

MEITY issued blocking orders against 22 illegal betting apps & websites

The government of India has been very critical in safeguarding Indian cyberspace by banning and blocking various websites and apps that have been operating illegally by scamming/dupping people of huge sums of money and also committing cyber crimes like data breaches. In recent developments, the Ministry of Electronic and Information Technology (Meity), on November 5, 2023, banned 22 apps including Mahadev Book and Reddyannaprestopro. The Centre has taken this decision on recommendations from the Enforcement Directorate (ED). ED raids on the Mahadev book app in Chattisgarh also revealed unlawful operations. This investigation has been underway for the past few months by the ED.

Applicable laws to prevent money laundering and the power of government to block such websites and apps

On the other hand, the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) 2002 is a legislation already in place which aims to prevent and prosecute cases of money laundering. The government also has the power to block or recommend shutting down websites and apps under section 69A of the Information and Technology Act, 2000, under some specific condition as enumerated in the same.

Conclusion

In the evolving digital landscape, cyberspace covers several aspects while certain regulations or guidelines are required for smooth and secure functioning.  We sometimes change our phone numbers or deactivate them, hence, it is significantly important to delete the data associated with the phone number or any such social media account data attached to it. Hence, such a number is eligible for reallocation to a new or early subscriber after the expiration of a period of 90 days from such deactivation. On the other hand, the centre has also blocked the websites or apps that were found to be part of illegal operations including betting and money laundering. Users have also been advised not to misuse the Internet-availed services. Hence, trying to create a lawful and safe Internet environment for all. 

‍

References:

• https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/cant-bar-telecom-companies-from-reissuing-deactivated-numbers-says-supreme-court/articleshow/104993401.cms
• https://pib.gov.in/PressReleseDetailm.aspx?PRID=1974901#:~:text=Ministry%20of%20Electronics%20and%20Information,including%20Mahadev%20Book%20and%20Reddyannaprestopro