Meta Platforms’ push to build AI agents capable of performing workplace tasks autonomously is now drawing scrutiny over how far the company is willing to go to train them. Internal documents reviewed by Reuters indicate that its employee-monitoring system, designed to capture how staff interacts with software, is collecting more data than initially disclosed and may extend its reach beyond the United States.

The initiative, known as the Model Capability Initiative (MCI), sits at the core of CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s broader effort to reshape Meta around artificial intelligence agents. The system tracks how employees use computers, recording actions such as mouse movements, clicks, navigation through menus, and broader software interactions across more than 200 applications and websites.

Meta originally told staff the tool would apply only to U.S. employees and that safeguards were in place to protect sensitive information. But internal documentation suggests a wider footprint and a deeper level of data capture than initially described, raising questions about compliance risks and internal consent.

At stake is a fundamental shift in how Meta envisions AI development. Rather than relying solely on curated datasets or public information, the company is attempting to build systems trained on real workplace behavior, effectively mapping how knowledge workers execute tasks in software environments.

Internal descriptions of the initiative indicate that MCI is intended to support the creation of AI agents that can perform routine digital work autonomously, from navigating applications to executing multi-step workflows. The ambition is to move beyond basic automation toward systems that understand task execution in context.

However, the scope of the data collection has unsettled employees. Internal posts viewed by Reuters describe the system as capable of generating detailed behavioral profiles of workers’ daily activities. One internal analysis, conducted with assistance from Anthropic’s Claude AI, reportedly found that MCI was integrated into existing security software and extended visibility into code changes, computer sleep and wake cycles, URLs visited, clipboard activity, and other workflow signals, some of which were stored in less secure formats.

The analysis concluded that combining these signals could enable a highly granular reconstruction of how employees work. As one employee wrote in an internal post, it could amount to “a complete behavioral model of how a knowledge worker does their job.”

The same post added: “Not ‘an AI that clicks a dropdown for you’ but ‘an AI that knows which dropdown to click, what to select, which document to paste it into, and what to do next.’”

The post was later removed, according to employees who spoke to Reuters.

The internal reaction has been sharp. Some staff have complained that the system consumes unusually large amounts of data, in some cases exhausting monthly home internet limits within days. Others have framed the initiative as part of a broader restructuring in which AI agents gradually absorb tasks previously done by humans.

One internal post referred to the initiative as turning Meta into an “Employee Data Extraction Factory,” reflecting growing unease over the scale of monitoring tied to AI training efforts.

However, Meta spokesperson Dave Arnold rejected those characterizations.

“In the interest of transparency, we notified non-U.S. employees that it was deployed on the computers of U.S. colleagues they may email or chat with in the normal course of business,” he said.

Arnold also said the system is limited to U.S. employees and is focused on interaction patterns rather than content.

“MCI was installed only on U.S. employees’ devices and that its focus was on how people interact with computers, not the content on their screens,” he said.

He declined to address specific claims about data volume or internal conclusions about the system’s architecture.

Still, internal documents suggest a more complex reality. Meta acknowledged in internal materials that the system could capture emails and messages involving U.S. employees regardless of the sender’s location. In one FAQ entry directed at non-U.S. staff, the company stated: “If a U.S.-based colleague has the tool enabled while gchatting or emailing with someone outside the U.S., that activity would be captured.”

The company also said collected data would be “dissociated” from identifying employee information, meaning it could not be traced or deleted at an individual level. That design choice has triggered concern among privacy advocates, particularly in Europe, where data protection laws impose strict limits on how personal information is processed and stored.

Potential European Regulatory Challenge

The initiative could expose Meta to challenges under the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which requires a lawful basis for processing personal data and enforces purpose limitation rules. Critics argue that workplace communications collected for operational purposes cannot easily be repurposed for AI model training.

Kleanthi Sardeli, a legal expert at privacy group NOYB (“none of your business”), said even indirect capture of European data could trigger violations. She warned that repurposing employee communications for AI training may be incompatible with GDPR requirements governing purpose limitation and consent.

Meta has informed Ireland’s Data Protection Commission, its lead EU regulator, that EU employee data and screen content “falls within the primary purpose of the tool,” according to a spokesperson for the authority, which did not elaborate further. Arnold declined to comment on regulatory discussions.

Technology companies are increasingly reliant on behavioral data to train AI agents capable of navigating real-world software environments. But as training methods become more intrusive, they are colliding with long-standing privacy frameworks and workplace expectations.

Mercedes-Benz could be barred from manufacturing, importing, or selling new vehicles in the United States under bipartisan legislation advancing in Congress, unless the bill is amended or the German automaker’s largest shareholder divests its stake.

CNBC reports that the Motor Vehicle Modernization Act of 2026, sponsored by House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.), aims to prevent Chinese automakers from gaining a foothold in the U.S. market. It would prohibit any automaker with “any direct or indirect equity interest” by a foreign-adversary government, including China, Russia, and North Korea, from operating in the United States.

Mercedes-Benz’s largest individual shareholder is the state-owned Chinese automaker BAIC, which holds a 9.98% stake. The company’s second-largest shareholder is Chinese billionaire Li Shufu, founder and chairman of Geely, with a 9.69% stake through his investment firm. Combined, these two Chinese-linked shareholders own approximately 19.67% of Mercedes-Benz Group AG.

Several people familiar with the legislation, speaking on condition of anonymity, told CNBC that gray areas in the bill’s language could, depending on interpretation, effectively ban Mercedes-Benz from the U.S. market. A former automotive policy advisor and lobbyist, who consulted on the bill, described the language as “unambiguous.”

Daniel Kelly, press secretary for the Energy and Commerce Committee, confirmed the details of the legislation but declined to comment on its potential impact on specific companies.

Mercedes’ Substantial U.S. Footprint at Risk

A ban would have major consequences. Mercedes-Benz operates two large assembly plants in the United States — a massive facility in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, that has produced more than 5 million vehicles since 1997, and a van production plant in South Carolina that began operations in 2006. The company employs more than 10,000 people in the U.S. and has long positioned America as a key manufacturing and sales hub.

A Mercedes-Benz spokesman declined to comment on the legislation but highlighted the company’s deep U.S. investments and workforce.

The bill includes exemptions for automakers that have manufactured passenger vehicles in the U.S. for at least five years before January 1, 2026. However, this exemption explicitly does not apply to companies with ownership ties to foreign-adversary governments.

A separate but related bill, the Connected Vehicle Security Act of 2026, was introduced by Sens. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) and Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) and Reps. John Moolenaar (R-Mich.) and Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) also include a 15% ownership threshold for restrictions on connected vehicles with Chinese software or hardware. Exemptions under that legislation are still being determined.

Broader Push to Block Chinese Influence in U.S. Autos

The legislation follows growing bipartisan concern in Washington over Chinese involvement in the U.S. auto sector, driven by national security risks, data privacy fears, and economic competition. It builds on previous restrictions banning connected vehicles with Chinese-linked software starting with 2027 models and hardware from 2030 models.

Stephen Ezell, vice president for global innovation policy at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, said Mercedes-Benz poses a smaller national security risk than fully Chinese-controlled automakers, calling any inclusion an “unintended consequence” that could result in job losses and reduced profits.

John Bozzella, CEO of The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, praised the bill’s overall direction in a letter to committee leaders but stressed that “details matter.” The group, which represents nearly every major automaker in the U.S., including Mercedes-Benz, declined to comment specifically on potential impacts to individual companies.

Autos Drive America, a lobbying group for foreign automakers that includes Mercedes-Benz, also declined to comment on the potential impact but reiterated support for the goals of related legislation while warning against unintended consequences for U.S. manufacturing.

Potential Impact on Other Automakers

The 15% ownership threshold is expected to also affect other companies with Chinese ties, such as Volvo (majority-owned by Geely), and smaller manufacturers like Faraday Future, Lotus, and Karma Automotive. Volvo recently received specific authorization from the U.S. government to bypass certain federal bans on connected vehicle technology linked to China.

However, exclusion from the U.S. market, one of its most important and profitable regions, would be a severe blow for Mercedes-Benz. The company has invested heavily in American manufacturing to serve both domestic and export markets. A ban would disrupt supply chains, threaten thousands of jobs, and force a painful strategic rethink.

While the bill targets Chinese state influence, its broad language risks collateral damage to established international automakers with legitimate minority stakes from Chinese entities.

As the legislation moves forward, lobbying efforts are expected to intensify. Mercedes-Benz and its allies will likely push for clarifications or exemptions to protect their U.S. operations. The bill is currently a House-only initiative with no Senate companion, but its strong bipartisan support on the committee suggests it has momentum.