Meta Removes "Train" from Commercial Terms of Service

Meta has quietly removed the term "train from its commercial terms of service, following a backlash from critics who claimed the company's original language would allow it to scrape websites linked on business pages without permission.

The change comes as Meta prepares to implement its new commercial terms of service on October 30. The updated policy had sparked concerns that the tech giant could use its AI training data requirements to avoid paying millions in licensing fees to news organizations.

Legal experts had warned that the original language would effectively allow Meta to collect vast amounts of web data from business pages, potentially undermining existing agreements between news outlets and social media platforms.

In response to the backlash, a Meta spokesperson provided a statement acknowledging the criticism but downplaying its significance. The spokesperson claimed that the updated policy only applies to ads and business products, and does not change how Meta uses web crawlers.

Meta's decision to drop the term train from its commercial terms of service has been seen as an attempt to quell criticism ahead of the policy rollout on October 30, but it remains unclear whether this move will be enough to address concerns over data collection and licensing fees.

Meta's revised terms of service have sparked renewed criticism from experts who argue that they still allow for invasive scraping of business page content.

The updated language deletes the word train from the original policy, which had raised concerns about Meta's use of scraped content to develop AI products.

Despite these changes, media and intellectual property attorney Matt Topic remains unconvinced. He points out that the revised terms permit Meta to use scraped content for a range of purposes, including developing business products with undefined boundaries.

Topic suggests that this broad language could still encompass training AI models, which would allow Meta to continue using scraped data in ways that critics find objectionable.

The revised policy also removes references to any content, instead focusing on the periodic pulling of updates from business users' websites for purposes such as improving advertising and business products.

Meta's revised terms of service have sparked continued criticism over their potential impact on online scraping. Experts say that while some changes have been made to provide more clarity on permitted uses, other provisions remain too broad.

The addition of language about permitted uses has been seen as a positive step by some, but others argue that it doesn't go far enough in addressing concerns around data scraping. Meta's revised policy still allows the company to develop advertising and business products associated with users' content, which could be used to scrape entire websites.

Some experts have suggested that Meta should explicitly agree to respect robots.txt files, which allow website owners to indicate their preference for how they are crawled by search engines. This would provide a clear indication of what is acceptable behavior when it comes to scraping data from websites.

Despite the revised policy, concerns around Meta's terms remain high. University of Wisconsin law professor Benjamin Sobel notes that even if robots.txt files are respected, the company could still rely on its terms of service to scrape sites that block scraping via these files.

Criticism of Meta's terms is not limited to expert opinions, with news organizations globally calling for regulators to intervene and prevent the company from implementing its revised policy. The UK News Media Association has accused Meta of engaging in a shameless land grab and urged regulators to take action to protect creators and businesses.

The backlash against Meta's commercial terms has continued to gain momentum, with several industry groups calling for regulatory intervention. The European Publishers Council has already submitted a request to the European Commission to take action, arguing that publishers must have control over how their journalism is used and be able to negotiate fair payment.

In the US, the News/Media Alliance has also weighed in, condemning Meta's terms as outrageous and probably illegal. The group's president and CEO, Danielle Coffey, described Meta's decision to withhold access to its audience unless businesses allow content scraping as an appalling, bad-faith policy" that amounts to an abuse of market power.

Regulators are being urged to take swift action to prevent the implementation of these terms on October 30. The hope is that by intervening now, they can protect creators and businesses from what many see as an overreach by Meta.