A Lagos High Court sitting at Tafawa Balewa Square has ruled in favour of human rights lawyer and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Femi Falana, awarding him 25,000 dollars in damages in a landmark privacy violation case against Meta Platforms Inc., the United States based technology company owned by Mark Zuckerberg.
Justice Olalekan Oresanya delivered the ruling on Tuesday in a five million dollar suit filed by Falana, who accused Meta of allowing the publication of videos and audio content falsely linking him to a medical condition identified as prostatitis. The materials, labelled “AfriCare Health Centre,” were hosted on Meta owned platforms and widely circulated online.
In his judgment, Justice Oresanya held that a global technology company that profits from user generated content cannot evade responsibility when such content infringes on fundamental rights. He ruled that Meta owed a duty of care to individuals affected by harmful material shared on its platforms, particularly where the risk of damage was foreseeable.
Falana, represented by his counsel Olumide Babalola, argued that the publication of misleading health related content violated his right to privacy as guaranteed under Section 37 of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria. The suit was also brought under Sections 24(1)(A) and (E) and 34(1)(D) of the Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023, as well as the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules of 2009.
The claimant told the court that the false health claims had damaged his reputation and undermined the public image he had built over decades of legal and civic engagement. He described the publication as offensive, distressing and intrusive, adding that it caused him emotional and psychological harm.
In rejecting Meta’s defence, the court dismissed the argument that technology platforms could rely solely on their status as intermediaries when they actively monetize content. Justice Oresanya ruled that where platforms exercise control over content processing, distribution and monetization, they bear responsibility for the consequences of misinformation circulated through their systems.
The court further held that Falana’s status as a public figure did not strip him of his right to privacy. It found that the dissemination of false medical information amounted to an unlawful intrusion into his private life, regardless of his prominence in public affairs.
Read also:
- Judiciary Promoting Restructuring – Falana
- Newspaper owners urge IGP to investigate attack, protect journalists
- Agbado stands still in honour of Olu Elect, who died before official coronation
Reacting to the judgment, Falana’s lawyer, Olumide Babalola, said the ruling marked a significant step in defining platform accountability under Nigerian law. He noted that the decision aligns with evolving global legal standards that reject the “mere platform” defence traditionally relied upon by big technology companies.
Babalola also said the court clarified a long standing misconception by affirming that health data enjoys heightened legal protection, even when the subject is a public figure. According to him, the judgment strengthens the enforcement of the Nigeria Data Protection Act and sends a clear message on the handling of personal data.
The court additionally found that Meta determines the purposes and methods of content processing, controls distribution algorithms and monetizes pages, making it a joint data controller alongside page owners. On that basis, Meta was held vicariously liable for the offensive publication.
Justice Oresanya concluded that Meta breached Section 24 of the NDPA by processing Falana’s personal data without lawful consent, paving the way for increased scrutiny of how social media platforms handle sensitive information in Nigeria.
