Summary

  • The CMA opened a Chapter II Competition Act investigation on 30 October into Meta’s commercial terms for businesses using its services. It will first assess whether Meta holds a dominant position in one or more UK markets, then whether existing or revised terms abuse that position.
  • Meta had paused the terms rollout on 28 October, pending industry consultation. The CMA’s public case timetable schedules initial information gathering through January 2027; the timetable is indicative, and the authority has made no infringement finding.

Two dates now sit on the same public record. Meta paused rollout of its revised commercial terms on 28 October. On 30 October, the Competition and Markets Authority opened an investigation into those terms. The CMA says the planned start had already moved from 30 October to 20 November. The sequence is clear; the public documents do not say the pause caused the investigation.

The terms matter because businesses that use Meta’s services to reach customers may have to accept them. The CMA says they could let Meta collect material from the websites of businesses and publishers and use it to develop its own products, including AI features, without giving those businesses a choice over whether or how their material is used. The regulator’s concern is that acceptance could impose unfair trading conditions on businesses that rely on the service.

The case’s first gate is market power. Under Chapter II of the Competition Act 1998, the CMA must assess whether Meta holds a dominant position in one or more relevant UK markets. If it does, the next question is whether the existing or revised terms amount to abuse. Section 18 includes unfair trading conditions among conduct that may qualify. The CMA must settle market definition and dominance before it can decide whether these conditions amount to abuse.

That order gives the opening phase real importance. The CMA’s case page names Meta Platforms, Inc., Facebook UK Limited and Facebook Ireland Limited, and says other relevant group entities may also be involved. It plans rapid initial evidence gathering and engagement with Meta and third parties from October 2026 through January 2027. The agency says the dates are indicative. January is a checkpoint in the published timetable, not a promised verdict date.

After that phase, the CMA may close the case. If it provisionally considers that competition law has been infringed, it may issue a statement of objections, let the named parties respond, and then reach a final decision. The public record currently contains no market definition, dominance finding, statement of objections or final decision. It also gives no detail about the particular business websites or contractual clauses the case team will examine.

The legal route matters. The CMA says Meta has not been designated with Strategic Market Status under the Digital Markets Competition Regime and describes its powers there as limited for firms without that designation. This investigation instead uses the Competition Act’s case-by-case prohibition on abuse of dominance. It puts the regulator’s market-power question at the front of the line.

A separate request for information about Meta One, the business subscription service, and complaints about posting external links on Facebook and Instagram sits outside this investigation. The CMA announced no decision to take formal action on that matter. Combining the two would blur a live case’s boundaries.

For publishers and other firms, the next useful evidence is concrete: how the CMA defines the relevant market, what evidence it accepts about businesses’ alternatives and reliance, and which version of the terms it examines. The published case tests market power and trading conditions; the CMA has made no finding about AI use.

Sources