Hoping to quell growing criticism, Meta has removed the word “train” from its updated commercial terms of service set to take effect on October 30. The move follows warnings from legal experts that the tech giant’s sweeping new terms appeared to grant Meta permission to endlessly scrape websites linked on business pages, potentially bypassing millions in licensing fees to news organizations.

Semantic Tweaks and Legal Loopholes

Initially, Meta’s terms authorized the use of “any content” to “provide, develop, improve, research, train, and maintain the integrity” of its products. The updated version deletes “train” and no longer refers to “any content.” Instead, it allows Meta to “periodically pull updates” from business users’ websites to “provide, develop, improve, research, and maintain advertising and business products.”

However, experts remain skeptical. Matt Topic, an intellectual property attorney, told Nieman Lab that the term “develop” is broad enough to include “train.” James Grimmelmann, a professor of digital and information law at Cornell Law School, agreed, stating the revised language is still “broad enough to drive a truck through.”

The robots.txt Controversy

A significant point of contention is Meta's refusal to include specific language in the policy agreeing to respect robots.txt instructions. While a Meta spokesperson claimed that content owners can still use robots.txt to signal preferences, legal experts like Professor Benjamin Sobel note that since complying with robots.txt is voluntary, Meta could potentially ignore these preferences if they are not part of the legally enforceable terms of service.

Global Regulatory Pressure

The policy has triggered an international outcry from media groups:

  • In the UK, the News Media Association accused Meta of a “shameless land grab” and “arrogant tech platform bullying.”
  • The European Publishers Council has asked the European Commission to intervene, arguing that platform terms are no substitute for explicit consent and fair payment.
  • In the US, the News/Media Alliance described the policy as a “clear abuse of market power” and urged regulators to block its implementation.