Meta plans consultations with publishers as its proposed website-scraping rights draw legal challenges and political criticism.
Meta business terms that would authorise website scraping face another possible delay as publishers intensify their opposition. The company says it will consult industry groups before implementing the changes.
Meta spokesperson Andy Stone said consultations could extend beyond November 20, the scheduled implementation date. If that happens, Meta would postpone the update and keep its existing terms in place.
However, the company still lists November 20 on its website. It had already moved the deadline from October 30 following objections.
Why publishers oppose Meta business terms
The proposed terms would allow Meta to use automated tools to access websites belonging to businesses using Facebook. Those tools include web scrapers, bots and crawlers.
Under the wording, Meta could collect material to support advertising and business products. The stated purposes include development, improvement, research and maintenance.
Publishers argue that these powers extend too far. One industry group has questioned their legality, while Norway-based outlets have filed a lawsuit challenging the terms.
Meanwhile, California Senator Adam Schiff has become the second lawmaker to urge Meta to reverse the changes. In a letter to Mark Zuckerberg, he criticised the scope of the proposed provisions.
Schiff warned that the wording could let Meta bypass paywalls, registration gates and other digital subscription barriers. He also said businesses had no way to reject scraping while keeping their accounts.
Assurances leave contractual questions unresolved
Despite acknowledging publishers’ concerns, Meta has not announced further substantive revisions to the wording. Earlier changes removed a reference to training and added language about advertising and business products.
Stone has said the update does not target news-site scraping. He has also promised that Meta will respect content owners’ robots.txt preferences, which communicate instructions to automated crawlers.
However, legal experts and publishing groups note that those preferences do not carry binding legal force. AI companies also regularly disregard such instructions.
Schiff highlighted another gap: the proposed terms contain no reference to robots.txt. He argued that users need an explicit contractual commitment to protect their content reliably.
For now, Meta’s pledge concerns consultation and a possible delay, rather than a confirmed rewrite. Stone said the company had heard publishers’ feedback and would consult industry groups and leaders before changing policy.
