A Brazilian judge provisionally bans Meta from using media content to train its AI
IA en un minuto newsroom · Editor: Jon Elgezabal
In 30 seconds
Meta cannot, for now, use what outlets from three Brazilian press associations publish to train its AI, on the orders of a São Paulo judge. Guilherme Madeira Dezem suspended that clause of the business terms and warned of penalties of one million reais a day for breaches. Norway had already halted those same terms six days earlier, according to El Tiempo.
On Tuesday, November 3, a judge in São Paulo barred Meta, the owner of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, from gathering content from outlets affiliated with three Brazilian press associations to train its artificial intelligence. AFP had access to the text of the decision.
It is an injunction: it stays in force until there is a final ruling. It was sought by the national associations of newspapers (ANJ), magazines (Aner) and radio and TV broadcasters (Abert), which accused Meta of demanding they hand over their content for free as the price of staying on its networks. That demand was part of Meta's new terms of use for businesses, due on November 20.
The judge, Guilherme Madeira Dezem, put that part of the terms on hold, stopped Meta from penalizing outlets that do not accept them and set a fine of one million reais for each day of non-compliance. He ruled without first hearing the company because that date was close, since the harm would be "irreversible" once the AI was trained. Meta has five days from being notified to mount its defense, and did not immediately reply to AFP.
The associations describe it as the first known decision in the world in favor of a media coalition against these terms. According to El Tiempo, citing O Globo, six days earlier a court in Norway had already temporarily suspended the same terms at the request of ten media groups in that country. The same paper reports that, the week before, Meta announced it would delay the new rules and consult the sector, according to Reuters.
Why it matters · analysis and opinion
The fight is no longer about whether AI can read the news, but about who sets the price. Meta tried to settle it through its terms of use, turning the handover into a condition for staying on its networks, and a judge has seen a possible abuse in that. Courts in Brazil and Norway halting the same thing within days weakens that route and pushes toward negotiated licensing deals. It is still a provisional decision and Meta has not yet presented its defense, so the substance is still to be decided. For any publisher, outlet or company that puts out its own content, this is a good moment to read the terms of the platforms it uses carefully and know which rights it gives away by accepting them.
Source: AFP · Written with the help of AI: how we make the news
What does it mean for your business? · analysis and opinion
The decision directly affects media outlets in Brazil affiliated with the three plaintiff associations: newspapers, magazines and radio and TV broadcasters. For other companies in Spain and Latin America nothing changes for now: this is a provisional measure, issued in Brazil and limited to those media outlets, and Meta can still present its defense.
What it does make clear is that a social network's terms of use for businesses can include clauses about using what you publish to train artificial intelligence, and that accepting them can be the requirement to keep using the platform. Our advice for any business that publishes its own content on Meta's networks (text, photos, videos) is to read the changes to the terms when they arrive, instead of accepting them with one click, and to keep a dated copy. It is also worth reviewing which valuable content is published in full on the network and which is better kept on your own website, linked from the network.
The cost of doing this is a short read each time the terms change. The risk of not doing it is unknowingly giving away the use of material that cost money to produce. The wise move is to follow the case, because the measure applies only until there is a final ruling and the final outcome may be different.
