Meta has banned ByteDance advertising in seven countries, including Japan. The ban covers not only promotion of TikTok itself but also third-party ads that send users to TikTok and other ByteDance services. Bloomberg reported the move first, and Meta confirmed to Reuters that it took effect immediately on October 8, U.S. time.
Under the measure, an advertiser does not have to be a competitor to be rejected: if an ad leads to a service that competes with Meta, it can be turned down. Companies and creators who have used Facebook and Instagram to attract audiences and direct them to TikTok may be affected.
To understand the dispute between the two companies, it helps to distinguish among restrictions on paid advertising, features that connect social apps to one another, and the treatment of ordinary web links.
Ban covers seven countries including Japan, and third-party ads that link to TikTok
The measure applies to seven countries: the United States, Canada, Japan and Egypt, plus Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam in Southeast Asia.
According to Meta's explanation to Reuters, the ban covers not only ads and paid promotional messages placed by ByteDance itself but also third-party ad campaigns that link to its services.
Meta says it has no obligation to run ads on its apps that drive users to competing services. Its position is that declining ads from competitors is standard business practice.
The reason Meta cited for the ban was not that the ad content is dangerous, but that the ads steer its users to a competitor.
As a result, advertisers need to check not only who is buying the ad but also where it leads.
For example, if a third party tries to use a Meta ad to send users to its own activities on TikTok, it is not exempt from the ban just because the advertiser is not ByteDance. Switching ad agencies does not solve the problem either.
Whether an ad can run depends not only on who pays for it but also on which service users reach after clicking.
However, what has been confirmed so far is a measure on paid advertising. It is not a blanket ban on mentioning TikTok or posting links to it in ordinary posts.
The detailed criteria are also not yet clear, including whether the ban extends to cases where an ad leads to a company's own website that contains a link to TikTok.
It would be premature to assume that directly steering users to TikTok and introducing it indirectly through another website will be treated the same way.
TikTok has also changed its links to other social apps, but what is restricted differs from Meta's measure
TikTok, for its part, has also changed features that send users to other social platforms.
The official help page, as of October 10, says TikTok has ended support for link features that directly open or log in to other social apps.
However, it is still possible to add a link in the profile that goes to another social platform's website.
Meta's measure restricts paid advertising, while TikTok's change concerns the function of moving from a profile to another social app. Both involve limits on links, but the features they target are different.
| User's path | Treatment confirmed so far | What is restricted or changed |
|---|---|---|
| From a Meta ad to a ByteDance service | Third-party ads also banned in the seven countries | Destination of paid ads |
| From a TikTok profile to open or log in to another social app | Support ended | App-linking feature in profiles |
| From a TikTok profile to another social platform's website | Link can be added if eligibility conditions are met | Web link in profiles |
Comparison based on Meta's October 8 explanation and TikTok's official help page as of October 10. The official help page does not state when TikTok's feature change began.
A TikTok profile can include a website link if the account has 1,000 or more followers or is a verified business account.
Creators have therefore not lost every way of directing viewers from TikTok to platforms such as Instagram. Still, any instructions that relied on the former app-linking feature will need to be revisited.
Whether an ad is accepted on Meta and what kind of link can be set in a TikTok profile are judged under separate conditions.
The change in TikTok's operating structure in the United States should also be considered separately from the competition over advertising.
According to the official announcement of January 23, ByteDance holds a 19.9% stake in TikTok USDS Joint Venture LLC, in which U.S. investors hold a majority.
While the joint venture is responsible for protecting U.S. data and the app, TikTok global's U.S. entity handles commercial activities such as advertising and e-commerce.
The reorganization of data protection in the United States does not mean that commercial competition with ByteDance has disappeared.
Dispute over protecting minors also bears on Meta's own competitive conditions
Meta is also calling on TikTok and YouTube to adopt similar measures to protect minors.
The background is the settlement with state and territorial attorneys general in the United States, announced on August 26.
According to Meta's official explanation, the settlement is structured so that the duration and terms of the usage restrictions Meta implements change depending on whether competitors take part in the measures.
The settlement terms include provisions under which the restrictions and part of the payment amount change depending on whether competitors participate.
| Meta's commitment or payment | Initial terms | Change if competitors participate |
|---|---|---|
| Duration of time limits and overnight restrictions | 5 years | 10 years if competitors join the agreement |
| Overnight restriction | Midnight to 6 a.m. | Expanded to 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. |
| Settlement payment | About 70% of roughly $18 billion, or about $12.7 billion, paid in installments over 10 years | The remaining roughly 30%, about $5.3 billion, is contributed on condition that TikTok and YouTube implement measures and make payments |
Comparison based on Meta's explanation updated on August 27. The conditions for the remaining $5.3 billion include TikTok and YouTube introducing usage time limits, age verification and similar measures, as well as paying corresponding amounts. The overnight and time limits apply to minors in the participating U.S. states and territories and exclude direct messages.
These terms help explain why Meta wants competitors to take part in protecting minors.
If only Meta limits usage time, the effect is limited when users simply move to other services such as TikTok or YouTube.
Meta itself has argued that minors restricted on one app may move to another, and it calls for common measures across the industry.
Standardizing protections for minors would also help level the playing field in the competition among companies for users' time.
Axios reported on September 11 that TikTok refused to run an ad urging TikTok to join the settlement with Meta, on the grounds that it was political content.
TikTok's advertising policy prohibits paid political ads, including those that support or oppose judicial or administrative decisions.
The existence of such a general rule, however, does not allow a conclusion that the decision to reject that particular ad was appropriate.
According to the report, TikTok's reason for refusing the ad was that it was political content. Meta's stated reason for its new measure, by contrast, is that the ads steer users to a competing service.
Both cases involve refusing to run ads, but the grounds differ.
The settlement over protecting minors is important background to the dispute between the two companies. However, there is no evidence to conclude that the ad ban was carried out as retaliation against TikTok or required by the settlement.
In Japan, the scope of the ad ban and accountability to advertisers are in question
In Japan, the advertising businesses of Facebook and Instagram are subject to the Act on Improving Transparency and Fairness of Digital Platforms.
The list of evaluation targets published by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry includes Meta Platforms, Inc., and it specifies ad display on Facebook and Instagram as covered services.
According to the ministry's explanation of the system, covered operators are required, among other things, to give advance notice of the content and reasons when changing the terms of service, and to disclose the content and reasons when refusing to provide a service.
They must also maintain systems for handling complaints and disputes.
However, because the rules also provide exceptions to the requirement to give reasons, the fact that the law applies does not by itself mean Meta's measure can be judged illegal.
For third-party advertisers, meanwhile, it is hard to decide what to do when Meta says only that it does not offer ad space to competitors.
For example, without knowing whether ads that send users to their own TikTok accounts are banned, or which countries and regions are covered, it is difficult to revise ad campaigns appropriately.
It also matters that advertisers can find out why an ad was rejected, and that they can file an appeal if an ad is wrongly judged to be prohibited.
At present, it is not confirmed what advance notice Meta gave advertisers or by what criteria it reviews individual ads.
If the conditions for applying the ban in each country and the treatment of indirect links become clear, advertisers will find it easier to distinguish campaigns they should stop from those they can continue.
With this measure, Meta has restricted steering users from its advertising services to competitors. But because the restriction reaches advertisers other than competitors, Meta needs to make clear where the ban ends and on what grounds ads are rejected.
How far Meta's decision to restrict links to competing services affects third-party advertising, and whether its criteria and appeal mechanism will be adequately explained to advertisers, will be the focus going forward.