CMA Meta Investigation Targets Publisher Terms

The UK’s Competition and Markets Authority has opened a formal investigation into whether Meta’s commercial terms for businesses break competition law, and the CMA Meta investigation centres on one question: can Meta collect content from publishers’ websites and use it for its own products, including its AI features, without giving them a choice? The CMA announced the case on 30 October, saying the terms “could amount to an unlawful imposition of unfair trading conditions for thousands of UK businesses that rely on its services to reach customers and audiences.”

It is the start of a case, not a finding. “As this is only the start of the CMA’s investigation, no decision has yet been made on whether Meta has broken the law,” the regulator said. Meta has already paused the change. A Meta spokesman told PA Media: “There are no grounds for a competition investigation.”

In brief

The CMA Meta investigation will assess whether Meta holds a dominant position in a UK market and, if so, whether its terms for businesses abuse that position.
The concern is that publishers and other businesses could have their web content used for Meta’s products, including AI features, without a choice.
Meta paused the new terms on 28 October. No breach has been found, and the CMA plans initial information gathering until January 2027.

What the CMA Meta investigation will examine

The terms are the ones TSN has followed since mid-October, when publishers objected to a clause that lets Meta crawl websites linked to business accounts. Meta then pushed the start date back to 20 November. According to the CMA, Meta’s terms “could allow it to collect content from the websites of businesses and publishers that use its services and then use it to develop and provide its own products and services, including its AI features – without those businesses getting a choice on if or how their content is used.”

The CMA is using the Competition Act 1998, and its case page says the case falls under Chapter II, the ban on abusing a dominant position. It will first assess whether Meta holds a dominant position in one or more relevant markets in the UK. Only if it does will it ask whether Meta’s “existing commercial terms, or revisions to those terms” amount to an abuse. The businesses named are Meta Platforms, Inc., Facebook UK Limited and Facebook Ireland Limited.

The complaints came from news publishers. The CMA says it is acting on concerns from stakeholders “including the News Media Association and Movement for an Open Web (MOW)”. The regulator also confirmed the case on its X account, describing it as an investigation into “whether Meta’s commercial terms for UK businesses and publishers breach competition law”.

How Meta’s commercial terms reached this point

The CMA’s own timeline is short. Meta had planned to introduce the new terms on 30 October but, “following active engagement with the CMA”, delayed them to 20 November. Then, on 28 October, Meta announced “a pause to the roll out of its commercial terms, pending a consultation with industry groups”.

“Digital platforms play an important role in helping UK businesses reach millions of customers around the world. But where a company holds a dominant position, it must not use that position to impose unfair terms,” said Sarah Cardell, the CMA’s chief executive. She said the regulator was “acting swiftly” after hearing from news publishers and other businesses, and added: “We will be working to reach a swift and satisfactory resolution to this case.”

Meta’s spokesman told PA that the company had “already committed not to change our terms without consulting publishers and other stakeholders”, and that “we welcome the opportunity to explain our approach to the CMA.”

The case page sets out what happens next. From October 2026 to January 2027 the CMA plans “rapid initial information gathering and engagement with Meta and third parties”, dates it calls indicative. It may then close the case, or, if it provisionally thinks the law has been broken, issue a statement of objections and hear Meta’s response before any final decision. The Competition Act also lets the CMA impose interim measures where temporary action is needed to prevent significant damage, though the regulator has not said it plans to.

A second Meta issue sits outside the case. The CMA is asking Meta about its new Meta One business subscription and about concerns from the Federation of Small Businesses over small firms posting external links on Facebook and Instagram without paying for a subscription. “No decision has yet been taken on whether the CMA will take formal action in this area,” it said.

Why the CMA chose competition law over its new digital powers

The choice of tool is the most telling part of this announcement. The CMA’s new digital markets regime, which it is using to propose opening up the iPhone’s contactless chip to rival wallets, only lets it set conduct rules for firms with strategic market status. Meta has no such status, and the CMA’s next set of designation proposals is not due before its board until spring 2027. That leaves the 1998 Act, which can take longer to reach a final decision but can be used now, and which comes with interim measures if the regulator decides it needs them.

The cost of that choice is the burden of proof. In the CMA Meta investigation, Chapter II means the regulator has to show dominance in a defined UK market before it can call any term unfair, and Meta says there are no grounds for the case at all. Meta’s pause may also weaken the case for urgency, which is why the case page’s wording matters: the CMA says it can look at Meta’s existing terms as well as revisions to them, so a pause alone may not end the matter.

For publishers, the dispute is the same one playing out in courts, from publishers urging judges to reject OpenAI’s fair-use defence to the Project Mango filing against Microsoft: who decides whether web content feeds a company’s AI. Here the argument is about bargaining power rather than copyright. The CMA is testing whether a business that relies on Meta to reach its audience has any real choice about the terms.

What to watch next in the CMA Meta investigation is whether Meta’s consultation with industry groups produces revised terms, whether the CMA seeks interim measures, and whether it issues a statement of objections or closes the case after January.