The Lagos High Court sitting at Tafawa Balewa Square has awarded $25,000 in damages to renowned human rights lawyer and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Femi Falana, in a suit against Meta Platforms Inc. over an alleged violation of his right to privacy.
The ruling followed a $5 million lawsuit instituted by Falana against the US-based technology company owned by Mark Zuckerberg. Delivering judgment on Tuesday, Justice Olalekan Oresanya held that Meta bears responsibility for content disseminated on its platforms, particularly where such content is hosted for commercial benefit and has foreseeable harmful consequences.
Falana, through his counsel, Olumide Babalola, accused Meta of publishing motion images and voice recordings captioned “AfriCare Health Centre,” which falsely suggested that he was suffering from a medical condition identified as prostatitis. According to Falana, the publication amounted to a gross invasion of his privacy, in violation of Section 37 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
The suit was brought pursuant to Sections 24(1)(A) and (E), as well as Section 34(1)(D) of the Nigeria Data Protection Act (NDPA) 2023, alongside the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009.
Falana told the court that the false video circulating on Meta’s platform damaged his reputation and undermined the image he had built over decades of public service. He argued that the content was not only false and offensive but also disturbing, portraying him in a misleading light and causing him emotional and psychological distress.
In its judgment, the court rejected the argument that digital platforms can shield themselves behind claims of being mere “hosts” or “intermediaries,” particularly where they monetise content and where harm arising from misinformation is reasonably foreseeable. Justice Oresanya emphasised that companies like Meta owe a duty of care to individuals affected by content published and amplified on their platforms.
According to Babalola, the ruling reinforces a growing standard of platform accountability under Nigerian law, aligning with evolving global legal principles on digital responsibility. The court further held that Falana’s status as a public figure does not diminish or extinguish his right to privacy.
The publication of false medical information, the court ruled, constituted an intrusion into Falana’s private life, regardless of his prominence in public affairs. Babalola noted that the judgment corrects a widespread misconception in Nigerian legal practice and affirms that health-related data attracts heightened legal protection, even when the subject is a public figure.
The court also found that Meta exercises control over the means and purposes of data processing on its platform, monetises hosted pages, and determines the reach of content through its distribution algorithms. On that basis, Meta was deemed a joint data controller alongside the page owners and was held vicariously liable for the offensive content.
Describing the decision as a significant legal milestone, Babalola stated that the ruling weakens the long-standing “mere platform” defence often relied upon by major technology companies.
The court further held that Meta breached Section 24 of the NDPA by processing personal data that was inaccurate, harmful, unfair, and lacked a lawful basis. The dissemination of false medical information was declared unlawful processing in itself.
Justice Oresanya stressed that where the risk of inaccuracy is foreseeable—particularly in cases involving sensitive personal data such as health information—platforms owe a heightened duty to ensure accuracy and integrity. The court found that Meta failed to implement sufficient safeguards to prevent or mitigate the harm caused.
As a global technology company with extensive technical and financial resources, Meta was expected to have robust content review systems, swift takedown procedures, and protective measures proportionate to the risks posed by misinformation. Its failure to do so, the court concluded, amounted to regulatory non-compliance under Nigerian data protection law.
