The terms require developers to implement and maintain technical and organizational security measures adequate to protect all platform-sourced data against unauthorized access, use, or disclosure.
This analysis describes what Meta's agreement states, permits, or reserves. It does not constitute a legal determination about enforceability. Regulatory applicability and practical outcomes may vary by jurisdiction, enforcement context, and individual circumstances. Read our methodology
This provision establishes a contractual security standard obligation for developers that runs parallel to, and must be assessed against, applicable regulatory security requirements such as GDPR Article 32 and the FTC's security expectations under the FTC Act and Safeguards Rule.
Interpretive note: The provision's 'appropriate' standard is not defined with specific technical benchmarks, leaving adequacy determinations subject to interpretation by both Meta and regulatory authorities.
The updated terms establish new obligations for developers integrating Meta's AI models into their products. The agreement now requires developers to comply with applicable AI labeling, disclosure, provenance-marking, and system classification requirements under applicable law, with responsibility falling on the developer to implement these disclosures to end users. The expanded definition of Inputs now explicitly includes code, libraries, databases, and any content accessed through connectors or integrations, which may broaden what user-submitted content Meta claims the right to process for safety and security purposes.
View change record →The updated terms remove developer restrictions that previously applied to large-scale platforms, meaning companies with more than 700 million monthly active users can now access Meta's AI models without special permission. The terms also eliminate the restriction on EU developers accessing multimodal models and consolidate account management under either managed accounts or Meta accounts. Developers previously subject to these restrictions should review whether the updated terms now permit their use case.
View change record →The updated terms authorize Meta to retain user-submitted content if its systems flag the content for a potential policy violation, in addition to retention tied to legal compliance and contractual rights. This expands the circumstances under which content may be preserved without explicit time limits. Under the revised language, content retention decisions may now be driven by automated policy-violation flagging in addition to legal or contractual necessity. Developers integrating the Llama API should understand that flagged content may be retained indefinitely pending policy review.
View change record →This new provision establishes affirmative security obligations on developers, shifting responsibility for data protection from Meta to the application layer.
View full change record →Under this clause, developers accessing Meta platform data are contractually obligated to implement security measures protecting user data from unauthorized access or disclosure, establishing a minimum security expectation that applies independently of any regulatory floor.
How other platforms handle this
to request that your data be transferred to a third party (data portability)
Your organization may allow you to access and export your data in order to back it up or transfer it to a service outside of Google.
Further, you may take legal actions in relation to any potential breach of your rights regarding the processing of your Personal Information, as well as to lodge complaints before the competent data prot...
"You must have and maintain appropriate technical and organizational measures to protect Platform Data against unauthorized access, use, or disclosure.Excerpt from Meta's Llama API Terms of Service
1.
Enforcement risk, jurisdiction flags, contract triggers, and due diligence action items.
Ad personalization controls removed. Contact scanning added. Advertiser data partnerships quietly dropped. A timeline of every change.
Get the research letter
Companies change their terms quietly. We read every version and catch what actually changed. One email a week on the changes that matter and what they mean.
This provision establishes a contractual security standard obligation for developers that runs parallel to, and must be assessed against, applicable regulatory security requirements such as GDPR Article 32 and the FTC's security expectations under the FTC Act and Safeguards Rule.
Under this clause, developers accessing Meta platform data are contractually obligated to implement security measures protecting user data from unauthorized access or disclosure, establishing a minimum security expectation that applies independently of any regulatory floor.
ConductAtlas has identified this type of provision across 290 platforms. See the full comparison.
No. ConductAtlas is an independent monitoring service. We are not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Meta.