By Obinna Uballa
A Lagos State High Court sitting at Tafawa Balewa Square has awarded $25,000 in damages against Meta Platforms Inc. for violating the privacy rights of human rights lawyer, Mr Femi Falana (SAN), by publishing a false video on Facebook claiming he was suffering from a terminal illness.
The suit arose from a video circulated on Facebook in early 2025 which falsely portrayed Falana as gravely ill. Disturbed by the publication, Falana approached the court through his counsel, Mr Olumide Babalola, seeking redress for the alleged breach of his privacy and unlawful use of his personal data.
Delivering judgment on Tuesday, Justice Olalekan Oresanya held that Meta breached Section 24 of the Nigeria Data Protection Act (NDPA) by processing Falana’s personal data in a manner that was “inaccurate, harmful, lacking lawful basis, and unfair.”
The court ruled that the publication of false health information amounted to the unlawful processing of sensitive personal data, stressing that medical information attracts enhanced legal protection under Nigerian law.
In a far-reaching decision, Justice Oresanya made significant pronouncements on the responsibilities of digital platforms operating in Nigeria. He held that a global technology company such as Meta, which hosts content for commercial benefit, owes a duty of care to individuals affected by material disseminated on its platform.
Rejecting Meta’s argument that it merely acts as a hosting platform or intermediary, the judge ruled that where a platform monetises content and the harm from misinformation is reasonably foreseeable, it cannot evade liability. He noted that this position aligns with emerging global jurisprudence on platform accountability.
The court further dismissed the notion that Falana’s status as a public figure diminished his right to privacy. According to the judge, the publication of false medical information constitutes an intrusion into private life, irrespective of public status.
Justice Oresanya also found that Meta determines the means and purposes of content processing on Facebook, monetises pages, and controls the distribution of content through its algorithms. On that basis, the court held that Meta acts as a joint data controller with page owners and is vicariously liable for unlawful content disseminated on its platform.
The judge faulted Meta for failing to put in place adequate safeguards to prevent or mitigate the harm caused by the misinformation. He held that, given its vast technological and financial resources, Meta was expected to deploy effective content moderation systems, prompt takedown mechanisms, and safeguards proportionate to the risks posed by false and harmful publications.
The failure to do so, the court ruled, amounted to non-compliance with Meta’s obligations under the Nigeria Data Protection Act.
Meta was represented in the suit by Mr Tayo Oyetibo (SAN).
