Meta has revised commercial terms that govern how it can pull information from business users’ websites. The update removes the word “train,” but legal experts say the new wording still gives the company room to use scraped material broadly. The changes are due to take effect on October 30.
What changed in Meta’s terms
The earlier version said Meta could use “any content” from websites posted on business pages to “provide, develop, improve, research, train, and maintain the integrity” of its products, services, or features. The revised text no longer says “any content” and removes “train.”
Instead, Meta says it may “periodically pull updates” from business users’ websites to “provide, develop, improve, research, and maintain advertising and business products.” The terms also mention using the material to “maintain the integrity and security” of Meta products.
The company describes this collection as serving businesses using its products. The stated purposes include helping them create and deliver ads and other commercial content, give users information about their products and services, and connect with users who may be interested in them.
Why critics say the wording remains broad
Meta made the revisions after legal experts raised concerns about the terms. Speaking to Nieman Lab, they warned that the policy could give Meta extensive access to websites linked from business pages. They also suggested it could require businesses to provide AI training data simply to run a business page, potentially helping Meta avoid licensing fees from news organizations.
Matt Topic, a media and intellectual property attorney at Loevy & Loevy, told Nieman Lab that “publishers should remain concerned.” He argued that the revised terms still permit Meta to use scraped content to develop any “business product.” In his view, that phrase is not defined, and “develop” could encompass training.
James Grimmelmann, a professor of digital and information law at Cornell Law School, said the revised terms add more language about permitted uses. But he also said “develop…advertising and business products” remains broad, and that the changes do not narrow wording that could allow Meta to scrape entire sites connected with a business’s products or services.
Meta’s spokesperson told Ars the consolidated crawling terms apply only to ads and business products and said the revisions do not change how Meta uses web crawlers or give it new rights that supersede website owners’ preferences. The spokesperson also said the changes are not about scraping news sites. Meta did not alert users to the updated language after the backlash, leaving business users to encounter the revisions without a direct notice.
Robots.txt remains a point of dispute
Website owners can use robots.txt files to signal whether they want crawlers to access their sites. Meta says content owners can continue to use those files to express their preferences. However, Benjamin Sobel, a University of Wisconsin law professor, told Nieman Lab that Meta has not added specific language in the terms committing to honor those instructions.
Because compliance with robots.txt is voluntary, critics worry that a preference in such a file may not be enforceable. Sobel said that without an enforceable preference, a site’s stated wishes could still be ignored. This leaves a gap between a business or publisher expressing a limit on scraping and having a contractual guarantee that Meta will follow it.
The distinction matters because the revised terms describe uses of website information, while the robots.txt mechanism communicates a site’s crawling preferences. The terms’ removal of “train” addresses one explicit use, but critics say the remaining permissions may still cover development of advertising and business products.
News groups call for intervention
Opposition has spread beyond the legal experts cited by Nieman Lab. News organizations have urged regulators to intervene before the revised terms take effect.
Theo Bamber, chief executive of the United Kingdom News Media Association, called the policy a “shameless land grab” and urged UK regulators to stand up for British creators and the business community. The European Publishers Council has asked the European Commission to intervene. Its executive director, Angela Mills Wad, said publishers must be able to decide whether and how their journalism is used and negotiate fair payment.
In the US, Danielle Coffey, president and CEO of the News/Media Alliance, called the terms “outrageous and probably illegal.” She argued that withholding access to Meta’s audience unless businesses allow website scraping would be an abuse of the company’s market power, and said the policy “cannot be allowed to be implemented on October 30.”
Meta’s revisions clarify some of the stated purposes for crawling business websites and remove an explicit reference to training. The central disagreement remains: Meta says the update does not grant new rights or change its crawler practices, while critics say broad development language and the absence of a robots.txt commitment leave important questions unresolved.