Meta Delays Controversial 'Mafia Term Tax' After Publisher Backlash

Meta, the parent company of Facebook, has delayed the implementation of new commercial terms that have drawn sharp criticism from news publishers who described them as a "mafia term tax." The changes, initially slated to take effect on October 30, have been extended until at least November 20.

Publishers accused Meta of attempting to "steamroller through" the new terms, expressing concerns that the company could "simply snatch" their content for free. Meta has disputed these claims. The dispute has raised the possibility that major news outlets might withdraw their presence from Meta's platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, which are crucial for distributing their journalism.

Andy Stone, Meta's vice president of communications, stated that the company had "heard publishers' feedback" and "care deeply about our partners." He added that Meta does not plan to enact policy changes without full consultation with industry groups. A Meta spokesperson told Digiday that the postponement was intended "to allow more time for us to explain to our partners and stakeholders what's changing and what's not."

Danielle Coffey, CEO of the News Media Alliance, an organization representing over 2,000 publishers, strongly criticized the proposed terms. In a letter to Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, she characterized the move as "an exercise of market power and is anticompetitive." Coffey stated that Meta's actions risk undermining the licensing market for publishers' content and could enable Meta to "simply snatch that content for free."

"This was a significant overreach, especially for a dominant platform who should know better when they’re forcing terms on the users who have no choice but to accept," Coffey said, adding that Meta's approach is a "take it or leave it" proposition that could lead publishers to "waive your right to copyright protection if you want to be found on my platform."

Complaints regarding the proposed changes have been filed with antitrust authorities in the European Union and the United Kingdom. The European Commission has welcomed Meta's decision to postpone the terms.

This situation is not the first instance of conflict between news organizations and major technology firms, particularly as artificial intelligence drives significant shifts in business models. The New York Times is currently suing OpenAI, the creator of ChatGPT, alleging that its articles were used to train AI models without permission, a claim OpenAI denies, citing fair use protections.

Last week, the World Association of News Publishers (WAN-IFRA) also voiced objections to Meta's plans. In a letter, WAN-IFRA noted that Meta's proposed terms for business accounts that manage pages, coordinate advertising, and send marketing messages state that these partners authorize Meta to use web scrapers and bots to collect data from their web pages "in order to provide, develop, improve, research, and maintain advertising and business products."

Meta had previously revised its terms to remove the word "train," following publisher concerns that their work could be used to enhance the company's AI systems. However, legal experts suggested this change might not be sufficient. Matt Topic, a media and intellectual property attorney, told Nieman Lab that publishers should "remain concerned" because the revised terms still allow Meta to use scraped content to "develop any 'business product,'" a term he described as potentially broad enough to include training AI systems.

Meta's platforms are particularly vital for news distribution in regions like Africa, Asia, and Latin America, where they serve as the primary online news source for many individuals and local outlets. Publishers argue that forcing them to choose between losing audience access or relinquishing control over their journalism effectively turns a distribution relationship into a license for Meta to take their content.