Meta may delay its updated business terms beyond November 20 as it responds to publishers’ concerns about how news-site content could be used in AI training. The company says its consultation with industry groups and leaders may continue past that date, leaving the existing terms in effect for now.
Consultation could extend past the planned date
Meta’s updated terms were first scheduled to take effect on October 30th. After publishers raised concerns about the language, Meta moved the start date to November 20th. The company is now signaling that it could postpone implementation again, potentially without setting a new date.
In a post on X, Meta communications head Andy Stone said the company does “not plan to make policy changes without a full consultation with industry groups and leaders.” He also said Meta had heard publishers’ feedback and was committed to getting the update right.
Stone said that if the consultation extends beyond November 20, Meta would delay the updated terms. Until then, he said, the existing terms remain in place. That means the company has described a possible delay, rather than announcing a firm new implementation date.
Why publishers objected to the terms
The initial wording appeared to give Meta permission to train its AI models on news sites that use Facebook and Instagram. Meta later revised the policies, removing language that indicated it could “train” its products on content scraped from those sites.
That edit did not settle the issue for everyone. Legal experts told Nieman Lab that the updated language still did not rule out the possibility that Meta could use the content for AI training. The distinction matters to publishers because the terms govern the relationship between their sites and Meta’s services, while the disputed concern centers on how material from those sites might be used.
The timeline shows how the company’s change became a broader discussion about both the wording of its business terms and the process for setting them. Meta first set a start date, then postponed it after concerns emerged, and now says further consultation could push the date out again.
Pressure comes from publishers and lawmakers
The News/Media Alliance has pushed back against the proposal, and lawmakers from both political parties have also criticized the new terms. Their responses add political scrutiny to the concerns raised by publishers and legal experts.
Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) said the updated terms indicate Meta is “attempting to exploit American creators and businesses.” Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) urged Meta to reverse the change.
Those objections reflect a dispute over the implications of the terms, even after Meta removed the explicit training language. The company’s promise to consult industry groups gives publishers and other leaders a chance to raise their concerns before the revision takes effect, but the article does not describe what changes, if any, Meta will make.
What happens next remains open
For publishers, the immediate point is that Meta says the existing terms will remain in place while consultation continues. The company has not provided a replacement date in its statement, and implementation could be delayed past November 20 if discussions are still underway.
The central question is whether the revised wording will address concerns about AI training on content from news sites using Facebook and Instagram. Meta says it wants a full consultation before changing its policies; publishers and lawmakers have made clear that the current proposal has drawn objections. Until the process concludes, both the timing and the final terms remain unsettled.