The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has opened a formal competition law investigation into Meta, the owner of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, over the commercial terms it imposes on businesses that use its platforms. The watchdog announced the case on Friday 30 October 2026 and, in the same statement, said it is separately questioning Meta about its new Meta One business subscription, after the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) raised concerns that small firms may have to pay to post links to their own websites on Facebook and Instagram.
For a British independent shop that sells through an Instagram profile, a market trader who sends customers from a Facebook page to an online till, or a small brand that runs its marketing on Meta’s apps, this is the most significant regulatory move against Meta in the UK for some time. This article sets out what the CMA has actually said, what Meta’s terms and Meta One involve, how a Competition Act case works, what it could mean for UK sellers, and what small businesses can sensibly do while the investigation runs.
In short
- Formal investigation: the CMA opened a case under Chapter II of the Competition Act 1998 on 30 October 2026 into whether Meta abuses a dominant position by imposing unfair terms on publishers, advertisers and other UK businesses.
- The terms at issue: revised commercial terms could let Meta collect content from businesses’ own websites and use it for its products, including AI features, without those businesses getting a choice. Meta paused the rollout on 28 October.
- Meta One link fees: separately, the CMA is seeking information on Meta One after the FSB warned about small firms paying a subscription to post external links. No decision on formal action has been taken.
- Meta’s position: a Meta spokesperson said there are “no grounds for a competition investigation” and that it has committed not to change its terms without consulting publishers and other stakeholders.
- What comes next: the CMA’s indicative timetable runs rapid information gathering from October 2026 to January 2027. No finding of wrongdoing has been made.
What has the CMA announced about Meta?
In a press release published on gov.uk shortly after midday on 30 October, the CMA said it has “launched an investigation into whether Meta’s commercial terms for businesses using its platforms and services breach competition law”. The case is being run under the Competition Act 1998 (often shortened to CA98), the UK’s main antitrust statute, rather than under the newer digital markets regime introduced by the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024.
The CMA’s case page names three companies under investigation: Meta Platforms, Inc., Facebook UK Limited and Facebook Ireland Limited. It adds that the investigation may also concern other entities in Meta’s corporate group, including relevant UK subsidiaries. The case is being led by project director Tamara Todorovic, according to the case page.
Sarah Cardell, the CMA’s chief executive, said in the release: “Digital platforms play an important role in helping UK businesses reach millions of customers around the world. But where a company holds a dominant position, it must not use that position to impose unfair terms.” She added that the authority is “acting swiftly to investigate” and will be “working to reach a swift and satisfactory resolution to this case”.
How the timeline unfolded
The sequence of events matters, because it shows the CMA acting before the disputed terms took effect rather than after. According to the CMA, Meta originally planned to introduce its revised commercial terms on 30 October 2026, the same day the investigation was announced. Following what the regulator called “active engagement with the CMA”, Meta delayed implementation until 20 November.
Then, on 28 October, Meta announced a pause to the rollout of the new terms, pending a consultation with industry groups. The CMA opened its formal case two days later regardless. In other words, the pause did not persuade the regulator to stand back, and the investigation will also look at Meta’s existing terms, not only the revised version.
The CMA said it is using its CA98 powers so it can “urgently investigate the concerns it has heard from stakeholders including the News Media Association and Movement for an Open Web”. The News Media Association represents national, regional and local news publishers in the UK, while Movement for an Open Web is a campaign group that has long argued against the data practices of the largest platforms.
The disputed provisions were first reported in mid-October by the US journalism research site Nieman Lab, according to subsequent coverage of the case. Publishers objected that the clauses would let Meta take their content to build its own services, including generative AI tools, simply because they use Meta’s business products.
What are Meta’s new commercial terms and why do they matter?
The CMA’s description of the problem is precise. It said the revised terms “could allow it to collect content from the websites of businesses and publishers that use its services and then use it to develop and provide its own products and services, including its AI features, without those businesses getting a choice on if or how their content is used”.
The regulator’s concern is that requiring news publishers and other content businesses to accept these terms “could amount to an unlawful imposition of unfair trading conditions for thousands of UK businesses that rely on its services to reach customers and audiences”. That phrase, unfair trading conditions, is drawn directly from the list of example abuses in Chapter II of CA98.
Most coverage on Friday framed the case as a dispute between Meta and the press. That is where the complaints came from, but the CMA was careful to describe the terms as covering “businesses using its platforms and services” in general, and the case page refers to “publishers and advertisers”. Reuters and the Press Association both reported the investigation as concerning terms for publishers and businesses.
That wider framing is what matters for retail. A UK fashion label that runs Instagram adverts, a gift shop that uses the Meta pixel on its website to measure Facebook campaigns, or a kitchenware brand with a catalogue connected to Facebook and Instagram all accept Meta’s business terms. If those terms allow Meta to collect content from a business’s own website and reuse it for Meta’s products, the issue reaches product descriptions, photography, buying guides and reviews written by retailers, not only news articles.
The CMA has not published the text of the revised terms, and Meta has said it is consulting on them. Reporting suggests Meta removed explicit language about training AI models during the dispute, before pausing the rollout altogether, though the CMA’s concern about content being used for AI features remains in its own statement. Until a final version is published, no retailer can say precisely what it would be agreeing to.
What is the Meta One question and why does the FSB care?
The second strand of Friday’s announcement is the one most likely to touch high street shops directly. The CMA said that, separately from the formal case, it “is seeking information from Meta on its new Meta One business subscription service and the concerns raised by the Federation of Small Businesses about the potential impact on small businesses of posting external links on Facebook and Instagram without paying a subscription fee”.
The CMA stressed that “no decision has yet been taken on whether the CMA will take formal action in this area and these issues fall outside the scope of the CA98 investigation launched today”. It is therefore an information request, not an investigation. It does, however, put the link limit on the regulator’s desk at the same moment it is examining whether Meta holds a dominant position.
How the Facebook link limit works
Meta One was announced by Meta on 15 September 2026 as a paid subscription across Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp and Meta AI, with business plans that over time replace the older Meta Verified product, according to Meta’s announcement as summarised by several independent analysts. Meta has said the plans are being rolled out gradually and that availability depends on country and account type.
The element that has alarmed small firms is a cap on links. According to Meta’s Facebook Help Centre guidance, as quoted by marketing analysts, a Facebook Page without a qualifying subscription can include links to outside websites in only two organic posts or comments a month. Links in paid adverts do not count, and nor do links to Meta’s own apps. Meta’s help pages say the limits “may not apply to all Pages”, and Meta reportedly told TechCrunch during an earlier test, which began in December 2025, that publisher Pages were excluded.
What Meta One costs in pounds
Meta publishes its business prices in US dollars and says prices may vary by region, so UK sellers should check the figure shown in their own account. The table below uses the published US prices, with approximate sterling equivalents at about USD 1 = GBP 0.746, the reference rate on 30 October 2026. Link allowances are as listed on Meta’s help pages, as compiled by independent analysts.
| Meta One business plan | Published price (per month) | Approx. in GBP (per month) | Approx. in GBP (per year) | Facebook link posts per month | Instagram posts and reels with links per month |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No subscription | Free | Free | Free | 2 | None |
| Essential | USD 14.99 | about £11.19 | about £134 | 2 (no increase) | None |
| Advanced | USD 49.99 | about £37.31 | about £448 | 8 | 4 posts and 4 reels |
| Expert | USD 149 | about £111.20 | about £1,334 | 20 | 8 posts and 8 reels |
| Max | USD 499 | about £372.40 | about £4,469 | Unlimited | 12 posts and 12 reels |
Two caveats apply. First, the plans are priced per account, so a retailer with a Facebook Page and an Instagram profile, or separate pages for two shops, may need more than one subscription. Second, some help pages list the top two plans at USD 149.99 and USD 499.99, a small difference that will be settled by the price Meta shows in each UK account.
Why a two-link cap matters to UK shops
For many independent retailers, a Facebook page is not a marketing extra: it is the shop window that customers check before they visit, and the place where a new delivery, a sale or a Saturday market stall is announced. Running a shop’s community presence through social media, including through a town Facebook group, relies on being able to send people somewhere to buy.
Two linked posts a month is roughly one every fortnight. A bakery that posts its weekly order form, a bookshop that links to event tickets, or a boutique that points followers to a new online drop could exceed that within days. The alternatives are to post without links and ask customers to search, to move the link to a profile bio, to pay for adverts, or to subscribe.
At current exchange rates, the Advanced plan, the lowest tier that adds Facebook links, would cost a small business about £448 a year per account before any adverts. That is not trivial for a sole trader. For comparison, the government’s 2026 Budget trebled the income tax trading allowance to £3,000 from April 2027, which gives a sense of the scale of side-hustle and micro-business income that a recurring platform subscription would be set against.
The FSB has not published a detailed statement alongside the CMA’s announcement, but the regulator’s description of its concern, the “potential impact on small businesses of posting external links on Facebook and Instagram without paying a subscription fee”, captures the complaint. The question for the CMA is whether this is an ordinary product change by a business free to price its services, or something that only a firm with market power could impose.
How does a Competition Act investigation work?
Chapter II of the Competition Act 1998 prohibits “conduct by one or more undertakings that amounts to an abuse of a dominant position in a market” which may affect trade within the UK. The CMA’s notes to editors spell this out. Being large, or even dominant, is not unlawful in itself: the offence is abusing that position.
The case page sets out the structure plainly. The investigation will assess “whether Meta holds a dominant position in one or more relevant markets in the UK” and, if so, “whether its existing commercial terms, or revisions to those terms, amount to an abuse of that position”. Defining the market comes first, and it is often the hardest part of any platform case: is the relevant market social media, display advertising, or reaching consumers online in general?
If the CMA concludes Meta is not dominant, the abuse question never arises. If it finds dominance, it must then show that the terms are unfair in a legal sense, which usually means demonstrating that they are not justified by any legitimate business reason and that a firm facing real competition could not impose them.
Possible outcomes, penalties and interim measures
After initial information gathering, the CMA may close the case if it decides not to proceed. If it provisionally considers the law has been broken, it issues a statement of objections and gives the parties a chance to respond before any final decision. Firms can also offer commitments to change their behaviour, which the CMA can accept to close a case without a finding.
Under CA98, the CMA can fine a business up to 10% of its worldwide turnover for an infringement. The CMA also reminded journalists that the Act allows it to impose interim measures “where temporary action is needed to prevent significant damage or protect the public interest”, a power that could in principle be used if Meta revived the disputed terms before the case concluded.
| Feature | Competition Act 1998 (used against Meta) | Digital markets regime, DMCC Act 2024 |
|---|---|---|
| Who it applies to | Any business with a dominant position in a UK market | Only firms designated with strategic market status (SMS) |
| Status for Meta | Investigation opened 30 October 2026 | Meta not designated; next proposals due to the CMA Board in spring 2027 |
| What must be proven | Dominance plus an abuse of that dominance | Breach of tailored conduct requirements set in advance |
| Timing | Looks back at conduct; cases often take years | Forward-looking rules once designation is made |
| Maximum fine | Up to 10% of worldwide turnover | Up to 10% of worldwide turnover |
| Temporary powers | Interim measures available | Conduct requirements and enforcement orders |
Why not the new digital markets powers?
The answer is in the CMA’s notes to editors. The regulator “has limited powers to take action under the digital markets competition regime (DMCR) for businesses that have not been designated with strategic market status”. It confirmed that “to date, Meta has not been designated with this status”, and that the CMA “continues to keep potential candidates for SMS designation under active review, with the next set of proposals due to be considered by the CMA Board in spring 2027”.
The CMA has already used the digital markets regime elsewhere. It designated Google with strategic market status in general search in October 2025 and designated Apple and Google in mobile platforms later that month, and it has since been shaping conduct requirements, including moves on opening iPhone contactless payments to Apple Pay rivals. Meta was not part of that first wave.
Using CA98 lets the CMA act now rather than wait for a designation that may or may not come in 2027. The trade-off is that a CA98 case requires the regulator to prove dominance and abuse to a legal standard that can be tested on appeal at the Competition Appeal Tribunal, which tends to take longer than enforcing pre-set rules.
How has Meta responded?
Meta rejected the basis for the case. “There are no grounds for a competition investigation,” a Meta spokesman told the Press Association. “We’ve already committed not to change our terms without consulting publishers and other stakeholders. We welcome the opportunity to explain our approach to the CMA.”
Reuters reported that Meta told it there were “no grounds” for the investigation. Meta has not, in the coverage reviewed for this article, commented publicly on the separate Meta One information request or the FSB’s concerns.
Meta’s argument is likely to rest on the fact that it paused the new terms before the case opened, and that the rollout is now subject to consultation. The CMA’s decision to proceed anyway suggests it wants to examine the existing terms and to secure a binding outcome rather than rely on a voluntary pause.
How does this fit with the CMA’s past cases against Meta?
This is not Meta’s first encounter with the UK competition regulator, and its history offers clues about how the case could end. The two most relevant precedents point in different directions: one was settled by commitments, the other ended in a forced sale.
| Case | Issue | Outcome | Relevance to UK sellers |
|---|---|---|---|
| Giphy acquisition | Meta’s purchase of the GIF platform Giphy | The CMA ordered Meta to sell Giphy; Meta sold it in 2023 | Shows the CMA will impose structural remedies on Meta |
| Facebook Marketplace and advertiser data | Whether Meta used data from advertisers that compete with Facebook Marketplace | Closed in November 2024 after Meta offered commitments letting competing advertisers opt out of data use | Directly relevant to retailers who advertise on Facebook while competing with Marketplace |
| Commercial terms (this case) | Whether terms let Meta take and reuse business content, including for AI, without choice | Opened 30 October 2026; no finding yet | Could set limits on what Meta can take from retailers’ websites and catalogues |
| Meta One link limits (information request) | Small firms paying a subscription to post external links | Information being sought; no formal action decided | The most direct cost issue for independent shops |
The Marketplace case is the closest analogy. It ended with Meta agreeing to change how it handles advertisers’ data rather than with a fine, and it was resolved through commitments. A similar route, in which Meta agrees binding limits on how it uses business content, would be one plausible outcome here, although the CMA has given no indication of its preferred remedy.
What does this mean for UK independent shops and online sellers?
In the short term, very little changes. Meta has paused the revised terms, the formal case is at an early stage, and the Meta One information request carries no deadline or obligation for businesses. Nothing announced on Friday requires a UK retailer to change how it uses Facebook or Instagram today.
Retailers that rely on Meta’s apps for sales, rather than just awareness, have the most at stake on both strands. If the investigation leads to clearer rules on what Meta may collect from a business’s website, those sellers gain protection for product copy and images they pay to produce. If Meta One’s link allowances stand, the cost of driving traffic from organic posts to a web shop rises. Sellers weighing their options may find it useful to compare TikTok Shop and Instagram Shop for retail brands, since the two platforms take very different approaches to links and in-app checkout.
For a high street shop whose Facebook page is its main online presence, the link limit is the practical concern. The CMA’s information request is the first sign that a UK regulator is looking at it, but it is not a commitment to act. Shops should plan as though the limit will apply to them, while watching for any CMA update.
This also strengthens the long-standing case for not relying on one platform. A shop’s own website, a Google Business Profile, an email list and a WhatsApp broadcast list all sit outside the Facebook link cap, and guidance on how main street retailers should think about online presence has consistently stressed owning at least one channel directly.
Consumers are not the target of either strand, but they would notice the effects. Fewer link posts from local shops means more “link in bio” and “search for us” posts, and potentially more screenshots of prices without a way to buy. Shoppers who follow small businesses on Facebook may find it worth signing up to those shops’ email lists or WhatsApp channels if they want reliable notice of offers before Christmas.
What should a UK small business do now?
There is no need for drastic action while the investigation runs, but some practical steps make sense before the Christmas trading period, when social traffic usually peaks.
- Check your own account. Look in your Facebook Page and Instagram professional dashboards for any notice about link limits or Meta One, and note the sterling price shown. Meta says the limits may not apply to all Pages, so your position may differ from a competitor’s.
- Count your link posts. Review how many posts with links your shop published in September and October. If it is two or fewer a month, the cap may not change much for you.
- Prioritise the links that matter. If you are capped, reserve linked posts for the highest-value moments: Black Friday on 27 November, last order dates for Christmas delivery and January sales.
- Build owned channels now. Add an email sign-up to your website and till receipts, set up a WhatsApp Business broadcast list, and make sure your Google Business Profile shows your website and opening hours.
- Read Meta’s business terms when the revised version appears. Meta has paused the changes pending consultation. When a new version is published, check what it says about collecting content from your website and catalogue.
- Tell your trade body. The FSB raised the Meta One concern with the CMA. Members with direct evidence of costs or lost sales can share it through the FSB or their sector association, and the CMA’s case page lists contact details for anyone with information relevant to the investigation.
What happens next and when?
The CMA’s indicative timetable lists “rapid initial information gathering and engagement with Meta and third parties” from October 2026 to January 2027. The regulator says the dates are indicative and may change. After that phase, it will decide whether to close the case or move towards a statement of objections.
| Date | Event | Source |
|---|---|---|
| 15 September 2026 | Meta announces Meta One subscription plans | Meta announcement, per analysts |
| Mid-October 2026 | Revised Meta terms reported, publishers object | Press coverage |
| 28 October 2026 | Meta pauses rollout of revised terms pending consultation | CMA press release |
| 30 October 2026 | Original start date for revised terms; CMA opens CA98 investigation | CMA press release |
| 20 November 2026 | Delayed start date for revised terms, now on hold | CMA press release |
| 27 November 2026 | Black Friday, a peak week for social selling | Retail calendar |
| October 2026 to January 2027 | CMA information gathering with Meta and third parties | CMA case page |
| Spring 2027 | CMA Board considers next strategic market status proposals | CMA notes to editors |
Two developments would change the picture quickly. The first is any decision by the CMA to open a formal case on Meta One, which it has expressly not yet taken. The second is a designation proposal for Meta under the digital markets regime in spring 2027, which would let the CMA set rules for Meta in advance rather than prove an abuse after the event.
The case also lands in a busy period for platform scrutiny in Westminster, with a Commons committee pressing Amazon and TikTok to face a safety hearing on online marketplaces in early November. Taken together, these moves suggest the largest platforms’ terms for UK businesses and shoppers will remain under examination well into 2027.
Frequently asked questions
What is the CMA investigating Meta for?
The CMA is investigating whether Meta abuses a dominant position by imposing unfair commercial terms on publishers, advertisers and other UK businesses. The terms could let Meta collect content from businesses’ websites and use it for its own products, including AI features, without giving them a choice.
Has Meta broken the law?
No decision has been made. The CMA said that “no assumptions should be made about whether competition law has been broken”. It will gather evidence from Meta and third parties before deciding whether to close the case or issue a statement of objections.
Is the Meta One link limit part of the investigation?
No. The CMA said it is separately seeking information from Meta on Meta One and the FSB’s concerns about small businesses posting external links without paying a subscription. It said those issues fall outside the scope of the formal investigation and no decision on formal action has been taken.
How many links can a free Facebook Page post?
According to Meta’s help pages, as summarised by marketing analysts, a Page without a qualifying subscription can include external links in two organic posts or comments a month. Links in adverts and links to Meta’s own apps do not count, and Meta says the limits may not apply to all Pages.
How much does Meta One cost in the UK?
Meta lists business plans from USD 14.99 a month (about £11.19) to USD 499 a month (about £372) per account, and says prices may vary by region. The lowest plan that adds Facebook link posts, Advanced, is listed at USD 49.99 (about £37 a month). Check your own account for the sterling price.
Can the CMA fine Meta?
If it finds an infringement of the Competition Act 1998, the CMA can fine a business up to 10% of its worldwide turnover. It can also accept commitments from Meta to change its behaviour, or impose interim measures if temporary action is needed.
Why did the CMA not use its new digital markets powers?
Those powers apply only to firms designated with strategic market status, and Meta has not been designated. The CMA said its next set of designation proposals is due to go to its Board in spring 2027.
What should my shop do now?
Check your own Facebook and Instagram dashboards for link-limit notices and the sterling Meta One price, save linked posts for peak moments such as Black Friday and Christmas order deadlines, and build channels you control, such as an email list, a WhatsApp broadcast list and an up-to-date Google Business Profile.