BARBARA ORTUTAY, CLAUDIA CIOBANU Meta said it was postponing the rollout of new terms for its business accounts after an outcry from media companies and open-web advocates who said the updated rules would allow the tech giant to scrape vast amounts of data and potentially build competing services.

The new rules, originally scheduled to go into effect Oct. 30, authorize Meta to use automated software such as web scrapers and bots to “index, cache, analyze, collect, retrieve, or crawl the domains, web pages, or URLs” associated with a business account.

The terms would have applied to all business clients, regardless of opposition, and without payment for the extracted content. Critics say Meta would have been able to use the content to potentially build products such as AI services that could compete with news publishers.

The new terms only apply 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 Oct. 28, a court in Norway granted a temporary injunction suspending Meta’s new terms at the request of 180 Norwegian media companies, pending a full assessment of their legality.

Their case was supported by the Norwegian Media Businesses’ Association (MBL), whose member newspapers account for approximately 97% of Norwegian newspaper circulation.

“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, MBL chair of the board.

The U.K. Competition and Markets Authority said Oct. 30 it was starting 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, however, says the terms don’t change how the company uses 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 Oct. 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 who reviewed the terms at its request.

While there do not appear to have been any lawsuits filed in the U.S., the Association of American Publishers called on Meta to drop the new 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, AAP president and CEO in a statement. “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.

Meta on Oct. 29 said it was listening to feedback and said for now its existing terms remain in place.

“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 The Norwegian MBL said it wasn’t satisfied with the postponement and Meta’s assurances were insufficient.

“This is about people’s access to trustworthy and critical journalism,” Randi S. Øgrey, CEO of the Norwegian MBL, 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 marginalized on Meta’s social platforms.

The Movement for an Open Web, the group which originally complained to the CMA, called Meta’s move and the regulator’s investigation a “significant win,” but warned it was only the start.

“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 from MOW.

The European Union executive body, the European Commission, confirmed it had discussed the proposed new terms with Meta and welcomed the postponement of their entry into force.

Spokesperson Sara Simonini said the commission was committed to ensuring that Meta’s practices comply with EU law, which prohibits a company from abusing its dominant market position and requires “gatekeeper” companies such as Meta to offer fair terms of use to businesses using their social platforms.

Simonini also said the EU executive had asked unspecified providers of AI models to give details about what training material they use, in line with the EU’s new AI Act adopted in 2024 and currently being implemented. Ciobanu reported from Warsaw, Poland.