Meta Delays Business Account Rules After Backlash Over Data Scraping
Meta announced a delay in the implementation of new terms for its business accounts following significant backlash from media organisations and advocates for the open web. Critics argued that the revised rules would enable the tech company to collect extensive data and possibly develop rival services. The new rules, originally scheduled to go into effect October 30, authorise Meta to use automated software such as web scrapers and bots to “index, cache, analyse, collect, retrieve, or crawl the domains, web pages, or URLs” associated with a business account. The terms would have been applicable to all business clients, irrespective of opposition, and without compensation for the extracted content. Critics argue that Meta could have leveraged the content to potentially develop products like AI services that might rival news publishers. The new terms are applicable solely to business accounts. Regular users of Meta’s platforms, including Instagram and Facebook, can already have their posts scraped to train AI models as long as they are public.
On October 28, a court in Norway issued a temporary injunction to suspend Meta’s new terms, responding to a request from 180 Norwegian media companies, while a comprehensive evaluation of their legality is conducted. Their case received backing from the Norwegian Media Businesses’ Association, which represents member newspapers that constitute around 97 percent of the circulation in Norway’s newspaper market. “We are satisfied that the court has agreed with us that Meta holds a dominant position in the relevant market and that the new terms are unreasonable,” said Lene Eltvik Vindfeld. The UK Competition and Markets Authority announced on October 30 that it was initiating its own investigation into the conditions. “The CMA is concerned that Meta requiring news publishers and other content businesses to accept these terms could amount to an unlawful imposition of unfair trading conditions,” it said Friday. Meta asserts that the terms do not alter the company’s utilisation of web crawlers. “This update is designed to make sure we’re able to pull accurate information about products for sale on third-party websites when making on-platform ad and content recommendations, not about scraping news sites,” wrote Meta spokesman Andy Stone on X on October 16.
His comments came after a report by the Nieman Journalism Lab at Harvard University, which said that as written, “the new terms could be used to argue that Meta can scrape content from news sites and use that content to train the company’s AI products.” Niemen Lab said it consulted three legal experts. Although no lawsuits seem to have been initiated in the United States, the Association of American Publishers has urged Meta to retract the newly proposed terms. “In putting forth these onerous terms of service Meta is implicitly acknowledging that permission is required for them to use creative works to develop and improve their products,” said Maria A. Pallante. “But at the same time this mega-corporation is abusing its dominant market power by compelling such consent from any commercial user who connects to any of their platforms.” At some point after Nieman Lab’s report, Meta removed the word “train” from the updated terms. The company says the update is not about scraping news sites.
On October 29, Meta indicated that it was attentive to feedback and stated that, for the time being, its current terms would remain unchanged. “We care deeply about our partners and do not plan to make policy changes without a full consultation with industry groups and leaders,” Stone posted on X. The Norwegian MBL expressed dissatisfaction with the postponement, deeming Meta’s assurances inadequate. “This is about people’s access to trustworthy and critical journalism,” Randi S. Ogrey said in a statement. “When the financial foundations of independent news media are weakened, media diversity and the democratic public sphere are at stake.” She said Norwegian media had three demands: Meta should commit in its new terms to respecting publishers’ reservations against scraping; using journalism in AI products should happen only after a separate, voluntary agreement and with payment; and publishers who do not sign the new terms should not be marginalised on Meta’s social platforms. The Movement for an Open Web, the group that initially raised concerns with the CMA, characterised Meta’s action and the regulator’s inquiry as a “significant win,” while cautioning that this is merely the beginning.
“Unless the CMA and other regulators make it abundantly and quickly clear that this sort of anti-competitive landgrab is not acceptable, then we will continue to see the tech giants throwing their weight around in this way,” said Tim Cowen. The European Union executive body, the European Commission, confirmed that it had engaged in discussions regarding the proposed new terms with Meta and expressed approval of the delay in their implementation. Spokesperson Sara Simonini stated that the commission is dedicated to ensuring that Meta’s practices align with EU law, which forbids a company from exploiting its dominant market position and mandates that “gatekeeper” companies like Meta provide equitable terms of use to businesses utilising their social platforms. Simonini also stated that the EU executive had requested certain providers of AI models to disclose the training material utilised, in accordance with the EU’s new AI Act, which was adopted in 2024 and is presently being implemented.
