The Lagos High Court at the Tafawa Balewa Square area of Lagos has awarded the sum of $25, 000 as damages in favour of Femi Falana, in the $5,000,000 lawsuit against Meta Platforms Inc., the U.S-based tech giant owned by Mark Zuckerberg, over 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 persons affected by content disseminated on its platform.
Falana, through his lawyer, Olumide Babalola, had accused Meta of publishing motion images and voice captioned, ‘AfriCare Health Centre’, on their website to the effect that he suffered a disease known as ‘Prostatitis’ which constitutes an invasion of his privacy as guaranteed by section 37 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.
The suit was also filed pursuant to Section 24(1)(A) and (E) & Section 34(1)(D) of the Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023, Order 2 Rule 1 Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules, 2009.
Falana said that the published false video about his health status has rubbished his image and the name he built over the years.
He also argued that the publication by the respondent, which is false, offensive, and disturbing, paints him in a false light, which has caused him mental and emotional disturbances.
In its judgement, the court rejected the notion that platforms can rely solely on ‘hosting’ or ‘intermediary’ arguments where the platform monetises content, and harm from misinformation is reasonably foreseeable.
For Falana’s lawyer, Olumide Babalola, this issue reinforced a platform accountability standard under Nigerian law, which aligns with emerging global jurisprudence.
The court also found that ‘the fact that the applicant is a public figure does not rob him of his right to privacy’. The publication of false medical information was found to intrude into the claimant’s private life, regardless of his public standing.
Babalola said that this finding settles an important misconception in Nigerian practice and affirms that health data enjoys heightened protection, even for public figures.
The Court also found that Meta determines the means and purposes of processing content; monetises pages and controls distribution algorithms; and therefore acts as a joint data controller with page owners. Accordingly, Meta was held vicariously liable for the offensive video.
Babalola said, ‘This is a major development under the NDPA and weakens the “mere platform” defence traditionally relied upon by Big Tech’.
The Court further held that Meta breached Section 24 of the NDPA, having processed personal data that was inaccurate, harmful, lacking a lawful basis, and unfair to the learned Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN). The False health information was held to be unlawful processing per se.
The Court emphasised that where the risk of inaccuracy is foreseeable, especially in relation to sensitive personal data, a platform owes a heightened duty to ensure accuracy and integrity, meaning that Meta failed to deploy adequate safeguards to prevent or mitigate harm.
As a global technology company with advanced resources, Meta was expected to implement effective content review mechanisms, rapid takedown processes, and safeguards proportionate to the risk posed by misinformation. Its failure to do so amounted to regulatory non-compliance.
