Meta’s new commercial terms say if its AI makes a mistake, it will legally be the customer’s fault

In Meta commercial terms changes slated to kick in on October 30, the company will shift the liability for any mistakes made by its AI models to its enterprise customers. The new language also makes those IT executives responsible for anything done by a partner or contractor.

The changes also finally put a stake into the heart of robots.txt, with Meta granting itself the right to grab, and use for its own purposes, any content associated with a Meta account.

The language allows Meta to “use automated software such as web scrapers, bots, robots, spiders, crawlers, and user agents and create test credentials to access, index, cache, analyze, collect, retrieve, or crawl the domains, web pages, or URLs, and any content available through them, that are associated with your products or services,” according to the new language on its website on Monday. Meta also wants to be able to “periodically pull updates from such domains, web pages, or URLs in order to provide, develop, improve, research, and maintain advertising and business products including business, commercial and related products to help you create and deliver ads and other commercial content.”

Consultants said the three biggest concerns they had about the changes were the web scraping, data ownership, and AI liability transfer.

Web scraping and data ownership

However, Meta emailed a statement to CIO.com late Monday suggesting that it was rethinking its position on web scraping. Saying that Meta wanted “to clarify” the web scraping changes, Emil Vazques, a Meta public affairs manager, said, “the crawling terms we consolidated only applied to our ads and business products and we’ve clarified that in the terms themselves. It does not change how Meta uses web crawlers. As always, content owners can use robots.txt to signal their preferences. This is not about scraping news sites, and these updates don’t give us new rights that supersede those preferences.”

As of Monday evening, New York time, the proposed document’s wording had yet to be altered to reflect this, but Vazques said that a change was coming soon.

The data ownership issue sets Meta apart from other AI vendors in that it wants to train it models on anything it encounters. Then again, the nature of Meta businesses focuses on advertising and would therefore be expected to seek more data control.

The new proposed phrasing, which Meta could alter before it takes effect later this month, said that using any Meta product grants Meta “a license to content that is covered by intellectual property rights like photos or videos you share, post, or upload on or in connection with our Meta Company Products. That license applies to content you or someone on your behalf, such as your agency that places an ad for you or your service provider that manages your Page content for you, makes available on or in connection with any Meta Company Products. Without limiting anything in our terms and for clarity, Meta may use such content … to provide, develop, improve, research, and maintain Meta Company Products.”

AI liability

But the change that prompted the most raised eyebrows involved AI liabilities. 

The proposed language said, “AI features may make mistakes and may not always produce accurate, complete, or suitable results,” and customers “are solely responsible for and assume any and all risks associated with such AI features and any resulting content.”

That AI clause, said Frank Dickson, principal analyst at Dickson Research, “turns accountability upside down. Meta builds the AI features, admits they ‘may make mistakes’ and then assigns ‘any and all risks’ to the business.”

Mike Wilkes, enterprise CISO at Aikido Security, agreed that the move is perplexing.

“The new AI provisions shift substantial responsibility for inaccurate or unsuitable outputs onto customers. That makes no sense,” he said. “As an example, the ASPCA is going to be liable for Meta creating unsuitable results when they ask Meta to create an image of a dog. Only Meta has control of the model being used to create that image. I see a very high flight risk among enterprise customers when platforms impose such onerous terms and conditions around content usage.”

The October 30 date that the US-based Meta chose is ironic. That is the day before Halloween, which is known as mischief night in the US, when children play pranks on their neighbors. Given that, Dickson said, the date for these changes is appropriate: “Meta is handing out the tricks and keeping the treats.” 

He added that the data grab is frightening. “What Meta wants is content: what a business posts, uploads, or shares on or in connection with Meta’s products,” he noted. “The trouble is the phrase ‘in connection with,’ which can stretch as far as Meta needs it to. The list of ‘Meta Company Products’ lives on a separate page that Meta can revise at will. The license grows every time that list does.”

And, Dickson noted: “Meta may use the content to ‘provide, develop, improve, research, and maintain’ its products. Those five verbs cover nearly everything a technology company does.”

‘Legal sophistry’

One of the obvious defensive measures for an enterprise is to sever all relations with Meta. But beyond the pragmatic difficulties of doing that, given the powerful market share enjoyed by Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram and Threads, such a move may not even solve the problem. That is because Meta made other contract changes in July that make Meta licenses “perpetual” and that said, “this license survives termination of these terms by any party for any reason.”

That, said Noah Kenney, principal consultant at Digital 520, means that the “the general content license ends when content is deleted from Meta’s systems,” not when the enterprise ends a contract.

One additional twist to the new language is that Meta had recently tweaked it to no longer explicitly say that it would train it models on enterprise data. But Thomas Randall, a research director at Infotech, said that the wording change made by Meta amounted to legal sophistry. “The revised version drops the word ‘train’ and states that collection is just for developing and maintaining advertising and business products, alongside protecting Meta products’ integrity and security.”

But dropping the word “train” is “not a substantive fix,” he pointed out. “The revised terms are still flexible enough to cover most AI work. When combined with other aspects of the revised terms — continued use equals consent, broad indemnity, AS-IS disclaimer, and Meta’s freedom to discontinue products without notice or liability — this is a one-way street. The difference between ‘train Meta products’ and ‘developing and maintaining Meta products’ is a matter of how you pronounce tomato.”

Could force IT strategy changes

In addition, Aman Mahapatra, chief strategy officer for technology consulting firm Tribeca Softech, stressed that this contract could be an industry admission that robots.txt no longer delivers any meaningful protections. Agentic systems had already made robots.txt close to irrelevant. 

“October 30 ends a thirty-year assumption that robots.txt protects what you publish. It never did,” Mahapatra said. “It was a courtesy convention the web agreed to honor, and Meta’s own framing of robots.txt as a place for site owners to register preferences tells you exactly how it will be weighed against a signed contract.”

Mahapatra said the language in the new Meta commercial terms could force a significant change in IT strategy.

“‘On your behalf’ extends the license to whatever your agencies and vendors upload. ‘Associated’ extends the crawl to domains nobody has defined, including the ones where marketing pages sit beside product documentation, research, and investor materials,” Mahapatra said. “Most CIOs cannot tell me how many Meta pages, ad accounts, and WhatsApp numbers carry their brand, because marketing and agencies own them and IT never inventoried them.”

This article originally appeared on CIO.com.