Publishers, advertisers call EU, UK antitrust regulators to suspend Meta's new commercial terms

Meta’s new commercial terms are updated rules for its advertising and business products. The Movement for an Open Web says the terms would give Meta broad rights over digital content supplied or made available through those services. The dispute matters because publishers and advertisers fear their content could support Meta’s AI services without a practical opt-out.

The terms are scheduled to come into effect on October 30. Critics say businesses that depend on Meta’s advertising and business tools may have to accept them to keep using those services. Meta disputes that interpretation. It says the consolidated crawling terms apply only to its ads and business products.

Meta also says the updates do not change how it uses web crawlers or give it new rights over website owners’ preferences. The European Commission and the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority are examining complaints. The CMA said it is holding urgent discussions with Meta before deciding what to do next.

The complaint came from the Movement for an Open Web, an advocacy group whose members include digital advertisers and publishers. These businesses object to Meta’s new commercial terms, which are due to take effect on October 30. They argue that the terms could force them to surrender rights over digital content.

The group complained to the European Commission and the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority. It asked both regulators to impose interim measures. Such measures could temporarily suspend or restrict the terms while regulators examine whether Meta’s conduct is anti-competitive.

The request faces a legal hurdle. Companies seeking interim measures must show that they would suffer serious and irreparable damage from the alleged practices. The CMA said it met Meta on Wednesday and is engaged in urgent discussions. The European Commission had not immediately responded to emailed requests for comment.

The businesses’ central concern is that Meta’s terms could give it an unlimited right to use digital content. They say Meta could collect, or scrape, material from websites and use the resulting data in AI-powered services. This matters because those services could compete with the same publishers and advertisers supplying the content.

Tim Cowen of the Movement for an Open Web said the terms would give Meta a free hand to scrape content from nearly every website in the world. He also said many businesses effectively have no choice but to use Meta’s services. In that situation, accepting the terms could become a condition of doing business through Meta.

Meta rejects this reading. Its spokesperson said the terms do not change how Meta uses web crawlers and do not concern scraping news sites. Meta also said the updates do not give it new rights that override website owners’ preferences, including signals made through robots.txt.

The alleged impact could be unusually broad because the criticism concerns two connected parts of the internet economy. Meta’s advertising and business products are used by many businesses, while the disputed language is said to reach content from websites worldwide. Critics therefore portray the issue as more than a contract dispute with a few publishers.

The Movement for an Open Web said Meta’s terms could give it a free hand to scrape content from nearly every website in the world. If that content helped power AI services, those services could compete with the businesses whose material was collected. The group says users may lack a meaningful opt-out.

The article does not quantify the number of affected businesses or websites. It does show that publishers and advertisers in several markets are challenging the terms. The European Publishers Council, Germany’s BDZV, and MVFP have raised similar concerns, while EU and UK regulators consider next steps.

The feared consequence is a loss of control over digital content. Publishers and advertisers say businesses that rely on Meta’s services may have no practical choice but to accept the new terms. In their view, acceptance could mean signing away rights without a usable way to opt out.

Tim Cowen said Meta could scrape content from nearly every website and use the data to power AI-powered services. Those services could then compete with the businesses whose content was collected. The concern therefore combines dependence on Meta’s commercial tools with the possibility of a new competitor using the same businesses’ material.

These consequences remain allegations, not established findings. Meta disagrees and says the terms apply only to its ads and business products. It also says content owners can use robots.txt to signal preferences. Regulators must assess whether the terms create serious and irreparable harm and whether interim measures are justified.

Web crawlers are software tools that visit websites and collect information from their pages. A robots.txt file is a website instruction that can signal which crawlers or sections should not be accessed. Together, they create a technical way for website owners to communicate preferences about automated visits.

Meta says content owners can use robots.txt to signal those preferences. Its spokesperson said the new terms do not change how Meta uses web crawlers and do not give Meta new rights that supersede robots.txt instructions. Meta also said the issue is not about scraping news sites.

That explanation conflicts with the Movement for an Open Web’s interpretation. The group says the terms could give Meta a free hand to scrape content from nearly every website. The article does not establish how every website’s robots.txt instructions would operate in practice. It shows instead that the meaning and reach of the terms are central issues for regulators.

Antitrust law can examine whether a powerful company uses its position to impose unfair conditions on businesses that depend on it. The concern becomes stronger when those businesses say they have no practical alternative. They may be unable to reject a new rule without losing access to important advertising or business services.

That is the argument made by the Movement for an Open Web. Tim Cowen said many businesses effectively have no choice but to use Meta’s services. He argued that Meta’s terms could force them to sign away rights to digital content, while Meta could use that content for AI services competing with them.

The article does not say that regulators have found an antitrust violation. The group has asked for interim measures, but applicants must show serious and irreparable damage. The CMA is discussing the terms urgently with Meta, and the European Commission had not yet commented. Those regulators will decide whether further action is warranted.