For many small businesses, Facebook and Instagram are more than social media platforms. They are important marketing tools through which businesses attract customers, promote products and generate sales.
Consider an independent business with its own website that relies heavily on Instagram and Facebook to reach customers. Over time, it has invested in building its online presence, attracting followers and establishing its reputation. Although it owns its website, an important part of its ability to reach customers depends on platforms it does not control.
Now imagine that one of those platforms introduces contractual conditions allowing it to access and collect content from the business’s independent website.
Can the business realistically refuse those conditions without risking access to an important source of customers?
This question lies at the heart of a dispute over Meta’s revised commercial terms, which have prompted complaints to competition authorities in the UK and European Union.
What is Meta proposing?
In October 2026, Meta, the company behind Facebook and Instagram, published revised Commercial Terms, originally scheduled to take effect on 30 October 2026. These terms apply broadly to businesses using Meta’s products for commercial purposes, including advertising, selling products and managing business Pages.
Under the section headed Licenses & Rights You Provide Meta, businesses authorise Meta to use automated tools, including web crawlers and bots, to access, analyse and collect content from websites associated with their products or services.
The permission is not confined to content uploaded directly to Facebook or Instagram. It extends to websites associated with a business’s commercial activities, including independent websites.
The stated purposes include providing, developing, improving, researching and maintaining Meta’s advertising and business products, as well as maintaining the integrity and security of its services.
The original wording attracted criticism because it expressly referred to using collected content to develop and train Meta’s products. Meta subsequently removed the express reference to training, while retaining provisions concerning automated access to associated websites.
Meta maintains that the revised terms clarify existing practices rather than introduce new rights. It also states that website owners retain technical controls, including robots.txt, through which they can communicate preferences about automated access.
However, the website-access provision in the revised Commercial Terms does not expressly explain how these technical controls affect the contractual permission being granted. This does not establish that such controls are ineffective, but it leaves an important question about the relationship between the contractual terms and technical restrictions.
The changes prompted the Movement for an Open Web (MOW), an advocacy group representing interests including publishers and digital advertisers, to file complaints with the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) and the European Commission.
MOW alleges that the conditions are unfair and exploitative and has requested regulatory intervention, including interim measures.
According to Reuters, the CMA confirmed that it had discussed the changes with Meta and was considering its next steps. The European Commission acknowledged receiving the complaint and indicated that it would assess it.
On 23 October, Meta postponed implementation of the revised terms until 20 November 2026, stating that it needed more time to explain “what’s changing and what’s not”.
The complaints do not establish an infringement, and the postponement should not be interpreted as a regulatory finding against Meta.
Why does this matter for small businesses?
The dispute raises questions extending beyond large publishers and advertising companies.
A small business may own its website, products and customer relationships, yet still depend on a major digital platform to attract potential customers.
Meta’s revised Commercial Terms expressly provide that businesses continuing to use its products after notice of an update agree to the revised conditions. Businesses that do not accept the terms may stop using those products for commercial purposes.
In practice, however, switching to alternative advertising channels can involve significant costs. A business that has spent years building its Instagram following cannot simply transfer that audience to another platform. It may need to rebuild its visibility, invest in advertising and establish new customer relationships.
This does not mean that every business depends on Meta or that alternatives are unavailable. The degree of dependence will vary.
Nevertheless, it illustrates an important distinction between having the legal freedom to reject contractual terms and having a realistic commercial alternative.
Can competition law protect businesses against unfair terms?
MOW’s complaint raises an important question about the application of competition law to contractual conditions imposed by major digital platforms.
UK and EU competition law prohibit a company with a very powerful market position from abusing that power, including by imposing unfair terms on the businesses that depend on it.
MOW argues that Meta’s revised terms are unfair and exploitative because businesses relying on its services would effectively be required to grant extensive permissions over content on their own websites. According to MOW, businesses may have little practical choice but to accept these conditions if they wish to continue using Meta’s platforms.
Meta rejects these allegations. It maintains that the revised provisions concern its advertising and business products, do not change its existing web-crawling practices and do not override website owners’ technical preferences.
The dispute illustrates the potential relevance of the prohibition on unfair trading conditions. However, the existence of a complaint does not establish that Meta has abused a dominant position. Whether the disputed terms infringe competition law remains an open question.
The controversy also raises a broader issue about the relationship between contractual consent and commercial dependence.
Businesses using major digital platforms generally accept standard contractual conditions rather than negotiating their terms individually. Such arrangements are common and are not, in themselves, contrary to competition law.
However, where businesses rely heavily on a platform to reach customers, rejecting changes to its contractual conditions may be commercially difficult.
This does not establish that the terms are unlawful. It does, however, raise a legitimate question about whether contractual acceptance necessarily reflects meaningful commercial choice.
What happens next?
Meta’s postponement until 20 November provides additional time for Meta to explain the revised terms, although it has not indicated that it will change them.
The CMA has discussed the changes with Meta, while the European Commission has acknowledged the complaint. Whether either authority will take formal enforcement action remains uncertain.
For small businesses, the dispute highlights a wider issue. Digital platforms provide valuable opportunities to reach customers, but reliance on those platforms may also make it difficult to reject changes to their commercial terms.
The question raised by MOW’s complaint is whether the disputed conditions represent legitimate contractual arrangements or an unfair exercise of market power. That question remains unresolved.
Ultimately, the controversy illustrates why accepting contractual terms and having a meaningful commercial choice are not necessarily the same thing.
