The European Commission received a formal request from the European Publishers Council on 22 Oct 2024 to halt Meta’s revised AI‑training terms. The request triggers a potential application of the Digital Markets Act and competition law to Meta’s data‑scraping provisions. Publishers risk losing the ability to use Meta’s advertising and page‑management tools unless the terms are suspended. The move clarifies that consent under the DMA may be treated as a contractual condition subject to antitrust scrutiny.

Full News Breakdown

The dispute arose after Meta added wording that would allow automated copying of publisher websites for AI training, prompting media groups to argue that the amendment breaches EU competition and copyright rules. The council asked Brussels and London to intervene before the terms become effective on 30 Oct 2024. The Commission acknowledged the request and indicated it will assess the terms under the relevant regulatory framework.

• Case Name: Meta AI‑Training Terms Review

• Authority: European Commission (Competition Directorate‑General)

• Date: 22 Oct 2024

• EU Instruments / UK Legislation Cited: Digital Markets Act; Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Art. 102); EU Copyright Directive; Competition and Markets Act 1998

• Key Provisions: DMA Art. 6(1) (gatekeeper consent); TFEU Art. 102 (abuse of dominance); Copyright Directive Art. 17 (online content use)

• Primary Legal Issue: Whether Meta’s AI‑training clause constitutes an unlawful restriction of competition and an infringing reproduction of protected works.

• Applicant Arguments: The clause gives Meta a free supply of copyrighted material, distorts the market for AI‑training data and breaches the gatekeeper consent rule.

• Respondent Arguments: Meta contends the amendment only facilitates accurate product‑information extraction for advertising and does not target news sites.

• Practical Outcome: The Commission will decide whether to issue interim measures that suspend the clause while a full review is conducted.

How Does This Affect You?

Before the request, firms operated under uncertainty about whether continued use of Meta’s platforms implied consent to AI training of their content. The Commission’s pending assessment clarifies that the consent clause can be examined under competition and copyright rules. This shift makes the risk of involuntary data provision more concrete and may limit the ability to rely on Meta’s tools without explicit opt‑out mechanisms.

For Lawyers & Advocates

• Amend client service agreements with Meta to insert a DMA‑compliant opt‑out clause for AI‑training, citing Art. 6(1) as the contractual basis.

• Conduct a competition‑risk audit for media clients, focusing on potential abuse of dominance under Art. 102 TFEU, and prepare evidential dossiers that reference the Commission’s preliminary guidance.

• Draft copyright‑licensing memoranda that explain how inadvertent scraping may now be treated as unlicensed reproduction under the EU Copyright Directive, and advise clients on securing separate licences where needed.

• Advise UK‑based firms that the CMA may open a market investigation under the Competition Act 1998, so pre‑emptive submissions should distinguish advertising‑data use from editorial‑content extraction.

• Update internal compliance checklists to flag any Meta‑provided analytics or automation tools that automatically harvest website content, because an interim suspension could render such tools non‑compliant.

For Law Students

This case teaches that regulators can treat contractual consent provisions as antitrust‑relevant conditions.
The core doctrinal distinction concerns “consent” under the DMA versus “licence” under copyright law.
The decision is particularly relevant for the study of:

• EU competition law – abuse of dominance

• Digital Markets Act – gatekeeper obligations

• Copyright in the digital single market

• Data‑driven AI training regimes

• EU internal market – free movement of services
  Comparable cases include Google Shopping GmbH v Commission (C‑527/16) and Infopaq International A‑/S v Danske Dagbladsselskab (C‑5/08). Comparing them shows how courts differentiate functional data use from unlawful content extraction.

For Businesses

• Media organisations must review digital‑marketing contracts to ensure they can terminate Meta services without breaching consent clauses, otherwise they risk losing control over proprietary articles.

• Advertising agencies should pause deployment of Meta’s automated product‑information tools until the Commission issues a final decision, as continued use could be deemed unlawful data scraping.

• Boards of tech platforms that rely on Meta for audience reach need to assess whether alternative channels are required, because a suspension could affect Q4 2024 revenue forecasts.

• CFOs should earmark budget for potential licensing fees if Meta is forced to negotiate a separate data‑use agreement with publishers.

Key Takeaways

• The DMA consent provision is now interpreted as a condition that competition authorities can block when it creates a free data supply for a gatekeeper.

• Counsel must insert explicit opt‑out mechanisms in all contracts with gatekeepers for AI‑training data.

• The Commission can issue interim measures suspending contractual clauses, and the CMA can launch a market investigation on the same basis.

• Watch the European Parliament’s amendment to DMA Art. 6 scheduled for a vote in early 2025, which may tighten consent requirements further.

• In‑house counsel should prepare a compliance brief for the board before the 30 Oct deadline for Meta’s terms to take effect.

Source: Publishers want Brussels and London to stop Meta’s new AI terms