Meta has pulled the plug on a rewrite of its business terms that publishers said would let it scrape their websites. At least, they have for now. Last week the company took down the preview link and posted a notice saying updates to its Commercial Terms, Product Catalog Terms, Self-Serve Ad Terms, and Ad Creative Generative AI Terms “are now paused and will not take effect on November 20, 2026.” “We’re pausing the changes as we continue to engage with stakeholders and take our time to get this right,” a spokesperson told Nieman Lab. Existing terms remain in effect.
The backlash started last month, when Nieman Lab reported on the new Meta terms of service and consulted three legal experts, who said that as written, they could be used to argue Meta could scrape news sites and use the content for AI. The terms authorized automated tools to “index, cache, analyze, collect, retrieve, or crawl” the domains and pages tied to a business account, and to use that content to “provide, develop, improve, research, train, and maintain” its products. They applied to business accounts only, without payment for the content. Regular users’ public posts can already be scraped for AI training.
Meta said that was a misreading. Spokesman Andy Stone wrote on October 16 that the update was designed to pull accurate product information from third-party sites for ads and recommendations, “not about scraping news sites.” The company removed the word “train” and limited use to “advertising and business products,” but critics, including legal experts, remained skeptical. Meta then moved the effective date from October 30 to November 20, and on October 28 pledged not to change policy without “a full consultation with industry groups and leaders.” Last week’s pause makes it indefinite.
The decision came after immense pressure worldwide. On October 28, a court in Norway granted a temporary injunction suspending the terms at the request of 180 media companies, supported by the Norwegian Media Businesses’ Association, whose members account for about 97 percent of Norwegian newspaper circulation. A court in Brazil also issued a preliminary injunction. The UK’s Competition and Markets Authority opened a formal investigation on October 30, saying it was concerned the terms “could amount to an unlawful imposition of unfair trading conditions.” In the United States, Sens. Adam Schiff and Marsha Blackburn wrote to Mark Zuckerberg asking him to withdraw the terms, and the Association of American Publishers called them an abuse of “dominant market power.”
Not everyone is satisfied with the delay. Norway’s media association said the delay wasn’t enough and wants publishers’ reservations respected and AI use of journalism only through a separate, paid agreement. The Movement for an Open Web, which first complained to the CMA, called the pause a “significant win” but said it’s only the start.
This isn’t the only area where Meta is experiencing pushback. Smart glasses are causing a lot of headaches for Meta (and others). According to Counterpoint Research, 7 million pairs were sold in 2025, and shipments were up 212 percent in the first half of 2026. Meta holds about 84 percent of the market. The pushback is spreading as usage grows. In London, which CNN calls a bellwether, the pub chain Wetherspoons has prohibited recording with the glasses, with a spokesperson saying “our instinct was to say, ‘turn the cameras off.'” Many UK cinemas are banning them over piracy concerns, and anti-glasses ads in London carry the tagline “We’re Always Watching.”
The core worry is consent. Videos online appear to show men filming women without their knowledge. “The whole notion of consent is kind of disintegrating,” said Irina Raicu of Santa Clara University’s Markkula Center for Applied Ethics. Meta says the glasses have a light that signals recording and that it updated them in August to prevent users from covering it after recording starts. Meta also points to accessibility benefits for visually impaired users, as the glasses are able to provide contextual audio descriptions for users, as well as integrate with apps like Be My Eyes, where users are able to connect with sighted volunteers for assistance in real time. But some wonder if the benefits outweigh the costs.
There’s also concern about Meta’s AI, Muse. The company’s always-on assistant can hold explicit text conversations with adults, which Meta says is allowed on an 18-and-over app because a private chat is “very different” from promotion on a social network. Creators, who are not allowed to write anything remotely explicit on Meta platforms, aren’t buying it. Vanniall, an OnlyFans creator whose 100,000-follower Instagram account is restricted, said it isn’t fair that Meta gets to “pull money out of people with their sexually active AI agent” while real adults can’t “engage in any sort of sensuality or sexuality.”
The thread tying all this together is who controls what gets captured, used, and allowed. Publishers didn’t want their work swept into AI products without a deal, venues don’t want customers recorded without a say, and creators don’t want rules that bind them but not Meta’s own AI. Meta has paused one fight. If consent and fairness are at stake in all three, how long before it faces the question head-on?