CMA opens competition investigation into Meta’s business terms

The Competition and Markets Authority has opened an investigation under the Competition Act 1998 into Meta’s commercial terms for businesses, bringing those terms under formal competition-law scrutiny in the UK.¹ The inquiry concerns conditions that businesses encounter when using Meta’s platforms and services, rather than a general examination of every aspect of the company’s operations.¹ At its centre is whether businesses must accept conditions that the CMA considers unfair when they rely on Meta to reach customers and audiences.¹ The regulator will also examine whether Meta is dominant in one or more relevant UK markets and, if so, whether the terms amount to misuse of that position.¹

The CMA’s concern includes the possibility that the terms would allow Meta to gather material from business and publisher websites and use it in developing products and services, including AI features.¹ The issue is not only what material might be collected, but whether businesses could choose whether it is used or set limits on how that use occurs.¹ The authority says the proposed requirement may create unfair trading conditions for thousands of UK businesses whose routes to customers and audiences depend on Meta.¹ That description identifies the affected group by its reliance on Meta, while the published concern does not give a separate count for particular types of business or platform.¹

The companies named in the inquiry are Meta Platforms, Inc., Facebook UK Limited and Facebook Ireland Limited; the CMA also says other Meta group entities could be brought within its scope.¹ This identifies the businesses being investigated, while the conduct at issue is framed around terms used by businesses on Meta’s services.¹ The CMA’s process began after it heard concerns from stakeholders, including the News Media Association and Movement for an Open Web, and it has used its powers under the Competition Act 1998 to open the case.¹ The CMA explains that it can use these powers once there is a reasonable basis to suspect a breach, so opening an inquiry should not be confused with deciding the case.¹

The CMA intends to gather initial information quickly and engage with Meta and other parties during the period from October 2026 to January 2027.¹ Those dates describe the authority’s current plan, not a guaranteed sequence: the CMA warns that its timetable is indicative and can change.¹ Following that initial evidence-gathering, the authority may end the case or issue a statement of objections if its provisional view is that the law has been infringed.¹ No such provisional conclusion is stated as having been reached, and the CMA expressly says it has not decided that Meta violated competition law.¹

Before the investigation was announced, Meta had planned to begin applying the terms on 30 October, then moved the intended start to 20 November after discussions with the CMA.¹ On 28 October, Meta said the rollout was on hold while it consulted industry groups.¹ These developments show that the implementation plan changed from an initial date to a later one and then to a pause, but the CMA’s stated investigation remains focused on whether the terms comply with competition law.¹ The CMA’s announcement therefore concerns scrutiny of the terms and their possible effects; it does not establish that the planned conditions were ultimately applied.¹

CMA Chief Executive Sarah Cardell said companies with a dominant position should not use it to impose terms that are unfair.¹ Cardell also said the authority was moving quickly and would seek a resolution that was both swift and satisfactory.¹ Those remarks describe the CMA’s stated approach, while the investigation itself must assess dominance in relevant UK markets and the effect of the terms.¹ The authority has not made a finding against Meta, and its possible next steps remain either closure or a formal statement of objections if its view becomes provisional and adverse.¹

The CMA is separately seeking information about Meta One and concerns that small businesses may have to pay a subscription to post external links on Facebook and Instagram.¹ Those questions are outside the present investigation, and the regulator has not decided whether they warrant formal action.¹ They should therefore be distinguished from the case about commercial terms and possible use of business or publisher content.¹ The distinction matters to the scope of the announced inquiry: the link-posting and Meta One concerns are being considered separately, not as findings within this case.¹

At the time of the announcement, Meta had not received strategic market status designation under the UK’s digital markets competition regime.¹ The next group of possible designations was due to be considered by the CMA Board in spring 2027.¹ That status process is distinct from the competition-law question in this investigation, which asks whether Meta is dominant in relevant UK markets and whether its terms abuse such a position.¹ The CMA’s present case proceeds under the Competition Act 1998, while its announcement places the digital markets designation process in a separate timetable.¹

A French appeals court has separately rejected Meta’s challenges to interim protections for publishers, leaving those requirements in force.³ The French measures require negotiations in good faith, disclosure of information about protected content and related platform revenues, and protection against reducing participating publishers’ display during negotiations.³ The orders followed complaints from DVP and APIG, groups representing French publishers and news agencies; Meta appealed in August, but enforcement continued while the court considered the challenges.³ In September, Meta said it had proposed temporary payment arrangements during negotiations, but the press organizations declined them.³

Meta said it was disappointed by the French ruling, was considering what to do next, and would continue to follow the interim measures and negotiate in good faith.³ The French dispute concerns payment for journalistic material under EU neighboring-rights legislation adopted in 2019, which gives publishers the ability to authorize certain digital uses and seek compensation.³ Agreements involving DVP and APIG members expired at the end of 2024 and in January 2025, and subsequent talks did not resolve the dispute.³ The appeals decision did not establish a definitive competition-law violation by Meta; the relevant competition authority still has to finish its investigation.³

The French ruling may be of interest to publishers and regulators elsewhere in Europe considering how journalism is used and remunerated on digital platforms.³ The UK and French matters both involve possible commercial conditions imposed by a dominant digital platform, but the French interim ruling is not a determination in the UK investigation.¹ The UK regulator still has to assess the relevant markets, Meta’s position in them, and whether the terms amount to abuse; it has not announced a conclusion on those questions.¹ The French case supplies context about a separate dispute over publishers’ content and payments, while the UK inquiry remains directed at Meta’s business terms and their possible effects on businesses relying on its services.¹³