Summary

  • Meta said on 28 October it would pause a rollout of proposed commercial terms while an industry group consulted; the change was due to take effect on 30 October and was moved to 20 November.
  • The CMA opened a formal Competition Act Chapter II investigation on 30 October. Its separate request for information about Meta One subscriptions and external links is outside this case.

The pause bought three weeks. The case starts now.

The timetable looked settled until it did not. Meta’s proposed terms were due to take effect on 30 October. After engagement with the Competition and Markets Authority, Meta announced on 28 October that it would pause rollout while it consulted an industry group. The CMA says the change has been delayed to 20 November.

Then, on 30 October, the regulator opened a formal investigation into Meta’s commercial terms. Meta could move its own rollout date; only the CMA could put a statutory competition case on this track. The pause bought three weeks. It did not take the terms out of the regulator’s hands.

The terms could allow Meta to collect and use content from websites for its products, including AI features, without publishers or businesses choosing whether or how that use occurs. The CMA’s case asks whether Meta may hold a dominant position in one or more relevant UK markets and, if so, whether existing or revised terms could amount to abuse under Chapter II of the Competition Act 1998.

The case turns on two findings: what the relevant market is and whether Meta is dominant there; then whether the specific terms abuse that position. Section 18 prohibits abuse by an undertaking that holds a dominant position in a market where conduct may affect trade in the UK. The Act lists unfair trading conditions among possible forms of abuse. A disputed contract clause alone settles none of those elements.

One regulator, two files

The CMA’s formal case covers Meta’s commercial terms. It has named Meta Platforms Inc., Facebook UK Limited and Facebook Ireland Limited, while leaving open whether other group entities may be involved. The authority’s case page describes rapid initial information-gathering and engagement through January 2027 as an indicative timetable. It may close the investigation or issue a Statement of Objections, to which the parties can respond.

The Meta One matter has a different status. The CMA says it is separately seeking information about a business subscription that may require payment for businesses to include external links. It has not decided whether to take formal action on that issue, and says it falls outside the Chapter II case. Folding it into the headline case would make the public record look broader than it is.

The sequence gives each side a different lever. Meta can revise or delay terms and consult businesses. The CMA can define an investigation, demand evidence under its legal powers and decide whether the record supports further steps. An industry group may surface practical objections; the public record does not give that group authority to determine the competition case.

The missing evidence is consequential: the CMA has not published its relevant-market analysis, evidence of dominance, or the case-specific effects of the terms. A disclosed market definition and evidence connecting the terms to exclusion or harm would change how much weight the legal theory deserves. Until then, the investigation is a question being tested, not a judgment delivered. Primary records: CMA case page; CMA announcement; Competition Act 1998, section 18.