The Lagos High Court sitting at the Tafawa Balewa Square area of Lagos has awarded $25,000 in damages in favour of human rights lawyer, Femi Falana (SAN), in his $5,000,000 lawsuit against Meta Platforms Inc., the United States-based technology company owned by Mark Zuckerberg, over the alleged invasion of his privacy.
In a judgment delivered on Tuesday, Justice Olalekan Oresanya held that a global technology company such as Meta, which hosts pages for commercial benefit, owes a duty of care to individuals affected by content disseminated on its platform.
Falana, through his lawyer, Olumide Babalola, accused Meta of publishing motion images and a voice-captioned video titled “AfriCare Health Centre” on its platform, which suggested that he was suffering from a disease known as prostatitis. He argued that the publication amounted to an invasion of his privacy as guaranteed under Section 37 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.
The suit was filed pursuant to Section 24(1)(A) and (E) and Section 34(1)(D) of the Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023, as well as Order 2 Rule 1 of the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules, 2009.
Falana maintained that the false video concerning his health status had damaged his reputation and the name he had built over the years. He further argued that the publication by the respondent, which he described as false, offensive and disturbing, portrayed him in a false light and caused him mental and emotional distress.
In its judgment, the court rejected the argument that online platforms could rely solely on “hosting” or “intermediary” status where such platforms monetise content and where harm arising from misinformation is reasonably foreseeable.
According to Falana’s lawyer, Olumide Babalola, the decision reinforced a platform accountability standard under Nigerian law and aligns with emerging global jurisprudence.
The court also held that “the fact that the applicant is a public figure does not rob him of his right to privacy,” finding that the publication of false medical information constituted an intrusion into Falana’s private life, regardless of his public standing.
Babalola said the finding settled a key misconception in Nigerian legal practice and affirmed that health data enjoys heightened protection, even where the individual concerned is a public figure.
The court further found that Meta determines the means and purposes of content processing, monetises pages and controls distribution algorithms, and therefore acts as a joint data controller alongside page owners. On this basis, Meta was held vicariously liable for the offensive video.
Babalola stated, “This is a major development under the NDPA and weakens the ‘mere platform’ defence traditionally relied upon by Big Tech”.
The court also held that Meta breached Section 24 of the Nigeria Data Protection Act by processing personal data that was inaccurate, harmful, lacked a lawful basis, and was unfair to the claimant. The false health information was deemed unlawful processing in itself.
Justice Oresanya emphasised that where the risk of inaccuracy is foreseeable, particularly in relation to sensitive personal data, a platform owes a heightened duty to ensure accuracy and integrity. The court found that Meta failed to deploy adequate safeguards to prevent or mitigate the harm.
As a global technology company with extensive resources, Meta was expected to have effective content review mechanisms, rapid takedown processes and safeguards proportionate to the risks posed by misinformation. The court held that its failure to do so amounted to regulatory non-compliance.
