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
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 →How other platforms handle this
You may reject any change we make to section 15 (except address changes) by personally signing and sending us notice within 30 days of the change by U.S. Mail to the address in section 15.b.
If we make any future change to this arbitration provision (other than a change to the Notice Address), you may reject that change by sending us written notice within 21 days of notice of the change...
The party initiating a Dispute must give notice to the other party in writing of his or her intent to initiate an Informal Dispute Resolution Conference, which shall occur within 45 days after the other party receives such notice...
"If you do not wish to be bound by this provision (including its waiver of class and representative claims), you must notify us as set forth below within 30 days of the first acceptance date of any version of these Terms containing an arbitration provision.Excerpt from Meta's Llama API Terms of Service
Coinbase's User Agreement includes a mandatory arbitration clause that most users may not have reviewed. Here is what the clause states and how the opt-out process works.
561 arbitration provisions across 197 platforms. ConductAtlas tracks how dispute resolution is being restructured across the internet.
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.
The clause states: “If you do not wish to be bound by this provision (including its waiver of class and representative claims), you must notify us as set forth below within 30 days of the first acceptance date of any version of these Terms containing an arbitration provision.”
ConductAtlas has identified this type of provision across 206 platforms. See the full comparison.
No. ConductAtlas is an independent monitoring service. We are not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Meta.