The competition watchdog says it is acting urgently against Meta's new terms for publishers. Its own evidence-gathering timetable does not finish until two months after those terms were due to take effect.
Estimated reading time: 6 minutes
In short. On 30 October 2026 the Competition and Markets Authority opened an investigation into whether Meta is "abusing a dominant position by imposing exploitative terms on publishers and advertisers" [1], acting, in chief executive Sarah Cardell's words, "swiftly to investigate" and promising "a swift and satisfactory resolution" [1]. The CMA's own case page sets the first phase of that investigation, "rapid initial information gathering and engagement with Meta and third parties", to run from October 2026 "to January 2027" [2], two months after the 20 November date Meta itself set for the terms under investigation to take effect, before Meta paused the rollout pending industry consultation [1]. Neither document says what, if anything, stops the terms taking effect if that pause ends first, despite the press release confirming the CMA can "impose interim measures where temporary action is needed to prevent significant damage" [1]. Separately, the News Media Association's chief executive, Theo Bamber, has argued publicly that "Parliament placed the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act on the statute books to empower the CMA to prevent exactly this kind of cynical and anticompetitive tech platform bullying" [3]. Cardell's own account to the House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee, ten days before the investigation opened, was blunter: "We obviously don't have a live designation in relation to Meta. There is the option also of using our competition enforcement powers" [4]. The investigation that opened used those older 1998 powers, not the newer Act. Two documented mistakes: four stars.
Meta's new commercial terms, due to take effect on 30 October 2026 and covering every business account on Facebook, Instagram, Threads, Messenger and WhatsApp, would have let it "collect content from the websites of businesses and publishers that use its services and then use it to develop and provide its own products and services, including its AI features, without those businesses getting a choice on if or how their content is used" [1]. Under pressure from the News Media Association and campaign group Movement for an Open Web, Meta delayed the rollout to 20 November, then paused it altogether on 28 October "pending a consultation with industry groups" [1]. The CMA opened its Chapter II Competition Act 1998 investigation the same day the terms had originally been due to start.
The claims, tested
| The document's own words | What the public record actually shows | Verdict |
|---|---|---|
| Cardell: the CMA is "acting swiftly to investigate whether Meta's proposed changes may breach competition law... We will be working to reach a swift and satisfactory resolution to this case" [1] | The case page's own timetable gives just two entries: investigation opened 30 October 2026, and "rapid initial information gathering and engagement" running "October 2026 to January 2027" [2], two months past Meta's own 20 November date for the terms it is investigating. The CMA confirms it can use interim measures "to prevent significant damage" [1], but neither document says it will | "Swift" describes how fast the file was opened, not how fast, or whether, anything stops the terms taking effect before the question of their lawfulness is settled |
| Bamber (NMA): Parliament passed the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 "to empower the CMA to prevent exactly this kind of cynical and anticompetitive tech platform bullying" [3] | Cardell, to the Lords committee, 20 October: "We obviously don't have a live designation in relation to Meta. There is the option also of using our competition enforcement powers" [4]. The CMA's own notes to editors confirm Meta "has not been designated" under the digital markets regime, with the next proposals "due to be considered by the CMA Board in spring 2027" [1] | The law publicly credited with forcing the CMA's hand is, by the regulator's own account, the one tool not available for this case; what opened on 30 October was the fifty-year-old Chapter II prohibition, chosen because the newer regime does not yet reach Meta |
A deadline the investigation's own clock does not meet
The case page lists exactly two dates. Investigation opened: 30 October 2026. First phase: "October 2026 to January 2027, rapid initial information gathering and engagement with Meta and third parties", with a footnote that "the dates above are indicative and may change" [2]. That is not a criticism of the pace by the standards of a competition investigation; the "possible outcomes" section explains that only after this initial phase might the CMA issue a statement of objections, let alone a final decision [2]. The problem is what sits outside that timetable. Meta's own revised date for rolling out the terms under investigation was 20 November 2026, a date it has now voluntarily paused "pending a consultation with industry groups" [1], not a date the CMA has suspended by any formal mechanism. The press release's notes to editors confirm, in passing, that "the Competition Act 1998 also allows for the CMA to impose interim measures where temporary action is needed to prevent significant damage or protect the public interest" [1]. Neither document says whether that power is being considered here, or what happens to the thousands of UK publisher and advertiser accounts the CMA says rely on Meta's services [1] if Meta's own pause lifts before "rapid initial information gathering" is even finished.
The law that is not doing the work
The public case for this investigation has been made largely in the name of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, the newer regime built specifically to rein in the largest technology platforms. Bamber's submission to the CMA argued Meta's terms "mirror the conduct the CMA addressed in Google Search earlier this year" under that regime [3], and his public statements have twice invoked it directly, once crediting Parliament with placing it on the statute books "to empower the CMA to prevent exactly this" [3], and again urging that "if Meta refuses, the CMA must stand ready to begin Strategic Market Status designation, with the binding conduct requirements that follow" [4].
That second quote gives the game away: it is a request for the CMA to start a process, not a description of one already under way. At the Lords committee session nine days before the investigation opened, peer Veronica Wadley, Baroness Fleet, put it to CMA executive director Will Hayter that Meta's conduct was "clearly uncompetitive leverage of Meta's strategic market position"; Hayter's answer did not claim that power was in play, only that "that's very much the complaint that's being made from the publisher side" [4]. Cardell was explicit: "We obviously don't have a live designation in relation to Meta. There is the option also of using our competition enforcement powers" [4]. Ten days later, the CMA opened its case under Chapter II of the Competition Act 1998, a power that predates the 2024 Act by a quarter of a century and does not depend on it. Its own notes to editors spell out why: "the CMA has limited powers to take action under the digital markets competition regime for businesses that have not been designated with strategic market status. To date, Meta has not been designated with this status" [1], and the next round of candidates will not even be considered "until spring 2027" [1], whatever this investigation finds.
None of that makes the Competition Act 1998 route illegitimate. Chapter II is a real power with a real history of enforcement. But a reader following only the public campaign around this case, not the regulator's own small print, would come away believing the new digital-markets regime had already been brought to bear on Meta. It has not, and will not be reconsidered for at least another five months.
Two documented mistakes, four stars. (1) The press release and the CMA's own public statements describe this investigation as swift and urgent; its own case timetable does not finish its first evidence-gathering phase until January 2027, two months after the 20 November date Meta set, then paused, for the terms under investigation, and neither document says what, if anything, would stop those terms taking effect regardless, despite confirming the CMA holds interim-measures powers for exactly that situation. (2) The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 has been publicly credited, including by the News Media Association, with empowering this action; the CMA's own chief executive told a House of Lords committee ten days before the investigation opened that Meta has no live designation under that regime, and the investigation that resulted used the older Competition Act 1998 instead, a limitation the CMA's own notes to editors confirm will not change until spring 2027 at the earliest.
Credit where due
The CMA moved fast by its own standards: concerns reached it "last week" before Cardell's 20 October committee appearance [4], and a formal Chapter II investigation was open within a fortnight, the same day the original terms had been due to start. The press release is also unusually candid about the limits of the CMA's own powers: most regulators do not volunteer, in their own announcement of enforcement action, that a newer and more powerful regime does not currently reach the company involved, or give a specific date for when that might change [1]. Meta, too, made a real concession under pressure, pausing the rollout entirely rather than proceeding on the delayed date, and has said publicly that the crawling terms are intended to apply only to "ads and business products" and do not change how it treats robots.txt signals [4]. Whether "develop... business products" meaningfully excludes AI training, after Meta removed the word "train" from the clause, is a question the CMA's investigation now exists to answer, not one this piece needs to settle in advance of it.
Sources
- CMA opens investigation into Meta's commercial terms, Competition and Markets Authority, published 30 October 2026.
- Suspected abuse of a dominant position in relation to Meta's commercial terms, CMA case page, GOV.UK, opened 30 October 2026.
- NMA calls on CMA to halt Meta's 'outrageous assault on journalism', InPublishing, published 23 October 2026.
- UK competition watchdog 'very alive' to risks from sweeping Meta scraping change, Press Gazette, published 21 October 2026, updated 23 October 2026.