Meta's new terms: can Norwegian publishers stop content collection by injunction?

Ten Norwegian media companies, among them NRK, TV 2, Schibsted, Amedia and Polaris Media, have together with the Norwegian Media Businesses’ Association (MBL) asked the Oslo District Court for an interim injunction against Meta. The application became known on 27 October 2026 and concerns Meta’s new terms for business accounts on Facebook and Instagram. The terms were originally to apply from 30 October 2026, but Meta has postponed their entry into force to 20 November 2026. The publishers consider that the terms give Meta the right to collect articles, images and video from their websites, including content behind paywalls, and that the content may be used for AI training. MBL argues that the terms constitute an abuse of a dominant position. The case raises the questions of what the terms actually provide, what is required for an interim injunction under Norwegian law, and what significance competition law, copyright and the Digital Markets Act have for organisations with business accounts.

What do Meta’s new terms for business accounts provide?

Meta’s new terms are an update of Meta’s Commercial Terms, which apply to all use of Meta’s products for business purposes. The current version dates from 6 March 2024 and contains no provision on the collection of content from customers’ websites. According to the preview version, as reproduced by the trade publication PPC Land, the customer authorises Meta to use automated software such as bots and crawlers and to create test credentials. The purpose is to access, index, analyse and retrieve content from domains and web pages associated with the customer’s products or services. A second sentence entitled Meta to use the content to provide, develop, improve, research and train Meta’s products.

Following criticism, Meta has stated that the word «train» has been removed and that collection is limited to advertising and business products. Meta has also stated that website owners may still use robots.txt to signal their preferences. Independent reproductions of the preview version of 18 October 2026 nevertheless contained the original wording, and robots.txt is not mentioned in the clause. We have not been able to verify the final text that is to apply from 20 November 2026. As far as is known, the terms are accepted by continued use of Meta’s products for business purposes, and there is no possibility of opting out of individual provisions.

The clause is not limited to media companies. It applies to every organisation with a business account that links a website to the account, and it will therefore also cover online shops, publishers and others publishing their own content. The right to create test credentials is particularly significant, because it may give access to content that otherwise requires registration or a subscription.

What are the conditions for an interim injunction under Norwegian law?

An interim injunction requires both the claim and the ground for interim relief to be shown on the balance of probabilities under Section 34-2(1) of the Dispute Act. The claim is here the publishers’ position that the terms are unlawful and cannot be enforced against them. A ground for interim relief exists under Section 34-1(1)(b) of the Dispute Act where a provisional arrangement in a disputed legal relationship is necessary to avert substantial harm or inconvenience. The publishers must therefore show that waiting for a final judgment would cause substantial harm, for example because content that has been collected and used cannot be retrieved.

The court must also carry out a proportionality assessment. An injunction may not be granted if the harm or inconvenience caused to Meta is clearly disproportionate to the publishers’ interest under Section 34-1(2) of the Dispute Act. The court may also require the publishers to provide security for Meta’s possible loss under Section 34-2(1) of the Dispute Act. In our assessment, the ground for interim relief will be easier to establish than the claim, since the collection of content for AI training is difficult to reverse, while the question of dominance requires an extensive market definition.

Can Meta’s new terms constitute an abuse of a dominant position?

The publishers’ principal argument is that the terms constitute an abuse of a dominant position under Section 11 of the Competition Act. Under Section 11(2)(a) of the Competition Act, abuse may in particular consist in imposing unfair trading conditions, and under point (d) in making the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance of supplementary obligations which have no connection with the subject of the contract. The corresponding rule in Article 54 of the EEA Agreement may also be relied on before Norwegian courts where trade within the EEA is affected.

The publishers must first show that Meta holds a dominant position in a relevant market. That may be the market for online social networking services or the market for the distribution of news content through social media. If dominance is established, the argument under point (d) is in our assessment the strongest. The right to collect content from the customer’s website has little connection with purchasing advertising or operating a business page, and the customer cannot use the service without accepting it. In Case C-252/21, the Court of Justice held that a competition authority may take account of infringements of other rules, in that case the GDPR, when assessing whether a dominant undertaking has abused its position. In our assessment, an infringement of copyright may similarly be a factor in assessing whether the terms are unfair.

What is the significance of copyright for Meta’s new terms?

Copyright is central because the terms may give Meta a contractual consent that would otherwise be lacking. Norway does not yet have rules on text and data mining that permit copying for AI training without consent. In Prop. 41 LS (2025–2026), the Government proposed a new Section 50 e of the Copyright Act, providing a general exception for text and data mining unless the rightholder has expressly reserved its rights in an appropriate manner, for example by machine-readable means. The bill was scheduled for debate in the Storting on 12 November 2026. The rules are discussed further in the article on copyright and AI.

In our assessment, a licence in the terms will take precedence over such a reservation, since the exception only governs use without consent. An organisation that has reserved its rights in robots.txt but accepts Meta’s terms may therefore have granted Meta a contractual right that the reservation does not prevent. Whether the clause on its wording actually grants a licence for use relevant to copyright, and not merely a right of technical access, is a question of interpretation that depends on the final text. Under general Norwegian contract law, ambiguous standard terms may be construed against the party that drafted them.

Test credentials raise a separate question. Circumvention of effective technological protection measures is prohibited under Section 99 of the Copyright Act. Where the customer has itself authorised Meta to create credentials, it is nevertheless doubtful whether the access constitutes circumvention within the meaning of the Act. Whether websites may exclude automated agents through terms and technical barriers is discussed in the article on blocking AI agents.

What does the Digital Markets Act mean?

The Digital Markets Act (DMA) provides a more direct basis in the EU than general competition law. Meta has been designated as a gatekeeper for, among other services, Facebook and Instagram. Under Article 6(12) DMA, a gatekeeper must apply fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory general conditions of access for business users to its online social networking services. The provision does not require dominance to be proven, and it is enforced by the European Commission.

The Digital Markets Act does not yet apply in Norway. On 23 October 2026, the Government published a proposal for a Norwegian Digital Markets Act for consultation, with a deadline of 3 December 2026. Norwegian publishers must therefore rely on the Competition Act in the proceedings before the Oslo District Court. European media organisations have asked EU authorities to examine the terms, and an assessment under the DMA in the EU may influence how Meta drafts its terms in Norway as well.

Are Meta’s new terms binding on Norwegian organisations?

The terms are standard terms, and as far as is known, continued use after their entry into force is treated as acceptance. Between businesses, it is in principle permissible to agree that standard terms may be amended in this way. An unreasonable provision may nevertheless be set aside or adjusted under Section 36 of the Contracts Act, and under Norwegian case law, onerous or unusual provisions must be specifically highlighted in order to become part of the contract. The requirements for incorporating standard terms are discussed in the article on standard terms and the Rototec judgment. Any choice of law and jurisdiction clauses in Meta’s terms will also determine where a contractual dispute concerning the terms may be brought.

What should organisations with business accounts do?

Organisations that use Facebook or Instagram for business purposes and have a website linked to the account should take a position on the terms before 20 November 2026. The outcome of the injunction proceedings will only bind the parties, and other organisations must decide for themselves whether to accept the terms. Further articles on contract terms are available on the contracts topic page.

1. Read the final version of Meta’s Commercial Terms when it is published, and check whether the collection clause and the permitted purposes have been changed.
2. Map the websites linked to the organisation’s business accounts and the content placed behind a login or a paywall.
3. Include an express reservation against text and data mining in the website’s terms of use and a machine-readable reservation in robots.txt.
4. Consider whether test credentials can be technically restricted so that they do not give access to paid content.
5. Document the organisation’s reservations and any objections to the terms in writing to Meta before they enter into force.
6. Follow the decision of the Oslo District Court and then decide whether the organisation should continue to use the business account on the new terms.

Questions and answers

Next legal review: 21 November 2026