Britain’s competition regulator has opened an antitrust investigation into Meta over proposed business terms that could allow the company to collect publishers’ website content for its own products, including artificial intelligence tools, even after the Facebook parent agreed to put the changes on hold.
The U.K.’s Competition and Markets Authority announced Friday that it is examining whether Meta is abusing its market power by imposing unfair conditions on publishers and advertisers that rely on its platforms. The regulator is concerned that the proposed terms could allow Meta to collect content from websites without giving businesses a meaningful choice over how that material is used.
The investigation puts new pressure on Meta just two days after it agreed to pause the disputed changes and consult with industry groups. Publishers have warned that the terms could force them to surrender control of their content to maintain access to Facebook and Instagram. British regulators are now examining whether those conditions violate competition law.
“But where a company holds a dominant position, it must not use that position to impose unfair terms,” CMA chief executive Sarah Cardell said.
Meta has pushed back against the investigation, arguing that regulatory action is unnecessary because it has already committed to consulting publishers and other stakeholders before changing its terms. The company also said it welcomes the opportunity to explain its position to British regulators.
The regulatory action comes one day after the World Association of News Publishers demanded stronger protections allowing publishers to prevent Meta from collecting their journalism without losing access to Facebook and Instagram. The group warned that publishers should not have to surrender control of their content to maintain access to audiences on the platforms.
Meta originally planned to implement the revised terms Friday before delaying them to Nov. 20, subsequently pausing the rollout. The CMA said it will gather evidence from Meta and affected businesses to determine whether the company holds a dominant position in a relevant U.K. market and whether the proposed terms amount to an abuse of that position. No finding of wrongdoing has been made.
