The Lagos State High Court sitting at Tafawa Balewa Square (TBS) has awarded $25,000 in damages in favour of human rights lawyer, Mr. Femi Falana (SAN), in his suit against Meta Platforms Inc. over alleged invasion of privacy.
Justice Olalekan Oresanya held that Meta, a global technology company that hosts and monetises content for commercial purposes, owes a duty of care to individuals affected by materials published on its platform.
Falana, through his counsel, Mr. Olumide Babalola, accused the US-based company owned by Mark Zuckerberg of publishing a motion image and voice-captioned content titled “AfriCare Health Centre”, which falsely implied that he was suffering from prostatitis.
He argued that the publication violated his right to privacy as guaranteed under Section 37 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), adding that the false health claims damaged his reputation and caused him mental and emotional distress.
In its judgment, the court rejected the argument that digital platforms could rely solely on “hosting” or “intermediary” defences, particularly where such platforms monetise content and the harm arising from misinformation is reasonably foreseeable.
According to Channels Television, Justice Oresanya ruled that Falana’s status as a public figure does not extinguish his right to privacy, stressing that the publication of false medical information amounted to an unlawful intrusion into his private life.
Babalola said the ruling corrects a long-standing misconception in Nigerian legal practice and affirms that health-related data enjoys heightened protection, even for public figures.
The court further held that Meta determines the means and purposes of content processing, controls distribution algorithms, and monetises pages, thereby acting as a joint data controller with page owners. On this basis, Meta was found vicariously liable for the offensive publication.
“This is a major development under the Nigeria Data Protection Act (NDPA) and significantly weakens the ‘mere platform’ defence traditionally relied upon by Big Tech,” Babalola said.
Justice Oresanya also ruled that Meta breached Section 24 of the NDPA by processing personal data that was inaccurate, harmful, lacked a lawful basis, and was unfair to the claimant, holding that the false health information constituted unlawful processing in itself.
The judge emphasised that where the risk of inaccuracy is foreseeable—especially in relation to sensitive personal data—digital platforms owe a heightened duty to ensure accuracy and integrity.
The court concluded that Meta failed to deploy adequate safeguards, including effective content-review systems and rapid takedown mechanisms, noting that as a global technology company with vast resources, its failure to do so amounted to regulatory non-compliance.
