The judgment, delivered on January 13, 2026, by Justice Olalekan Oresanya at the Lagos High Court (Tafawa Balewa Square), marks a watershed moment for digital rights enforcement in Nigeria. More significantly, it represents one of the first judicial applications of the Nigeria Data Protection Act (NDPA) 2023 against a major technology company—and the first to explicitly reject Meta’s intermediary liability defense in an African court.
The Case: When Deepfakes Target Reputation
The lawsuit originated from a video published on Facebook in early 2025 by a page titled “AfriCare Health Centre.” The content used what appears to be AI-generated imagery and voice synthesis to falsely claim that Falana, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria and one of the country’s most respected human rights lawyers, had been suffering from prostatitis—a prostate condition—for 16 years.
Falana, who has never had this condition, saw his image and fabricated health narrative broadcast to millions of Nigerians through a sponsored post designed to drive traffic to dubious medical services. The video remained accessible globally despite his legal team’s attempts to secure rapid takedown from Meta.
In February 2025, Falana filed a $5 million lawsuit against Meta, arguing the publication violated Section 37 of Nigeria’s Constitution (which guarantees privacy rights) and multiple provisions of the Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023. His legal team, led by privacy law expert Olumide Babalola—convener of PrivCon Nigeria and co-author of the Casebook on Privacy and Data Protection Law in Nigeria—accused Meta of processing his personal data unlawfully, publishing false medical information without verification, and failing to implement adequate content moderation safeguards.
The “Mere Platform” Defense Collapses
Meta’s defense strategy, predictably, relied on the intermediary liability argument that has shielded tech platforms from accountability for user-generated content across multiple jurisdictions. The company’s legal team, led by Tayo Oyetibo (SAN), argued that Meta merely hosts content created by third-party users and cannot be held responsible for every piece of information published on its platform.
Justice Oresanya systematically dismantled this argument.
The court held that Meta’s role extends far beyond passive hosting. The judgment found that Meta “determines the means and purposes of processing content, monetises pages, and controls distribution algorithms,” thereby acting as a joint data controller with page owners rather than a neutral intermediary.
This is a seismic shift in how platform accountability is understood under Nigerian law. By classifying Meta as a data controller—not merely a hosting service—the court applied the full weight of the NDPA’s obligations to the company, including the duty to ensure data accuracy, implement appropriate safeguards, and prevent reasonably foreseeable harm.
“This is a major development under the NDPA and weakens the ‘mere platform’ defence traditionally relied upon by Big Tech,” Babalola stated following the ruling.
Three Critical Legal Principles Established
The judgment establishes three foundational principles that will shape digital platform regulation in Nigeria:
1. Monetization Creates Duty of Care
The court rejected the notion that platforms can claim intermediary status while simultaneously profiting from content distribution. Where a platform monetizes content and harm from misinformation is “reasonably foreseeable,” the platform owes a duty of care to affected individuals.
This standard creates a direct link between commercial benefit and legal responsibility—a framework that could have profound implications for how platforms operate in Nigeria. If you profit from content, you bear responsibility for the harm it causes when that harm is predictable.
2. Public Figures Retain Privacy Rights for Health Data
The judgment firmly established that public figure status does not extinguish privacy rights, particularly concerning sensitive personal information like health data. The court found that “the publication of false medical information was found to intrude into the claimant’s private life, regardless of his public standing.”
This settles what Babalola described as “an important misconception in Nigerian practice” and affirms that health data enjoys heightened protection even for individuals who operate in the public sphere. Being a public figure does not grant platforms license to publish false medical narratives.
3. Platforms Must Deploy Proportionate Safeguards
Perhaps most significantly for future cases, the court held that Meta breached Section 24 of the NDPA by processing personal data that was “inaccurate, harmful, lacking a lawful basis, and unfair” to Falana.
The court emphasized that where the risk of inaccuracy is foreseeable—particularly regarding sensitive personal data like health information—platforms owe a heightened duty to ensure accuracy and integrity. As a global technology company with vast resources, Meta was expected to implement “effective content-review mechanisms, rapid takedown processes, and safeguards proportionate to the risks posed by misinformation.”
Meta’s failure to deploy these safeguards constituted regulatory non-compliance and direct liability for the harm caused.
The Damages: $25,000 vs. $5 Million
While the court found in Falana’s favor on all major points, it awarded $25,000 in damages rather than the $5 million requested. The relatively modest award reflects judicial pragmatism in calculating compensatory damages, though it may raise questions about whether the financial penalty is sufficient to deter future violations by a company of Meta’s size and resources.
For context, Meta reported over $134 billion in revenue in 2023. A $25,000 penalty barely registers as a rounding error in the company’s quarterly earnings. Critics might argue that without more substantial financial consequences, platforms have little economic incentive to invest in the “proportionate safeguards” the court demands.
However, the precedential value of the ruling far exceeds the monetary award. By establishing clear legal standards for platform accountability under the NDPA, the judgment creates a framework that could expose Meta and other platforms to significantly larger liability in future cases—particularly class actions involving multiple victims or more severe harms.
Implications for Nigeria’s $220 Million Meta Reckoning
This ruling arrives amid an escalating regulatory confrontation between Nigerian authorities and Meta. In April 2025, the Competition and Consumer Protection Tribunal upheld a $220 million administrative penalty against Meta and WhatsApp for discriminatory and exploitative practices, following a 38-month investigation by the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) and the Nigeria Data Protection Commission (NDPC).
Meta has reportedly threatened to withdraw Facebook and Instagram from Nigeria if forced to comply with what it characterizes as “unrealistic” regulatory demands, including data localization requirements. Nigerian regulators have condemned this as “a calculated move aimed at inducing negative public reaction” and have held firm.
The Falana ruling strengthens the government’s position. By demonstrating judicial willingness to apply the NDPA rigorously and reject platform immunity arguments, the judgment signals that Nigerian courts will support regulatory enforcement actions rather than defer to Big Tech’s preferred interpretation of the law.
Rotimi Ogunyemi, a technology attorney at BOC Legal in Lagos, noted that while Meta’s compliance burden in Nigeria has increased significantly, a full withdrawal remains unlikely. “Nigeria is Meta’s largest African market,” Ogunyemi explained. “While Meta finds the current regulatory demands onerous, the potential loss of market share, user data, and strategic positioning makes a full exit improbable.”
The Broader African Context
Nigeria’s assertive data protection enforcement places it at the forefront of a continent-wide reckoning with Big Tech’s operational practices. While European regulators have levied billions in fines under GDPR, African countries have historically struggled to hold global platforms accountable for practices that would trigger massive penalties elsewhere.
The Falana ruling demonstrates that this dynamic is shifting. By grounding platform accountability in both constitutional privacy rights and comprehensive data protection legislation, Nigerian courts are building a legal framework that can withstand Big Tech’s traditional defenses.
Other African jurisdictions watching this case include Kenya, South Africa, and Ghana—all of which have enacted or strengthened data protection laws in recent years and face similar challenges enforcing them against multinational platforms.
What This Means for Platforms Operating in Nigeria
The practical implications of this ruling extend far beyond a single lawsuit:
Content Moderation Must Be Proactive: Platforms can no longer rely on reactive takedown processes. The court’s emphasis on “reasonably foreseeable harm” and “proportionate safeguards” suggests platforms must implement proactive systems to prevent harmful content from reaching users, particularly when sensitive personal data is involved.
Algorithm Transparency May Be Required: By identifying Meta’s control over “distribution algorithms” as evidence of data controller status, the court opens the door to arguments that algorithmic amplification of harmful content creates direct liability. This could force platforms to provide greater transparency around content recommendation systems.
Health Misinformation Is High-Risk: The ruling establishes health data and medical misinformation as categories requiring heightened protective measures. Platforms may need to implement specialized verification processes for health-related content, particularly when it identifies specific individuals.
Sponsored Content Demands Higher Standards: The fact that the harmful content in this case was a sponsored post—meaning Meta profited directly from its distribution—likely influenced the court’s reasoning. Platforms may face greater liability for monetized content than for organic user posts.
The Road Ahead: Enforcement and Appeals
Meta has not publicly commented on whether it will appeal the judgment. Given the company’s broader regulatory battles in Nigeria and the precedent this ruling establishes, an appeal appears likely. The case could ultimately reach Nigeria’s Supreme Court, which would have the opportunity to provide definitive guidance on platform accountability under the Constitution and the NDPA.
Meanwhile, the legal framework established in this ruling will almost certainly inspire additional lawsuits. Nigeria’s legal community now has a template for pursuing privacy and data protection claims against digital platforms, and the Falana case demonstrates that courts are willing to apply the NDPA’s provisions meaningfully rather than deferring to platform immunity arguments.
For Big Tech companies operating in Africa’s largest digital market, the message is clear: the era of claiming to be “just a platform” while profiting from content distribution without corresponding responsibility is ending. Nigerian courts are prepared to hold platforms accountable as data controllers when they monetize content, control algorithms, and fail to prevent foreseeable harm.
A New Chapter in African Digital Rights
The Falana ruling represents more than a legal victory for a prominent lawyer whose image was misused. It marks a critical inflection point in how African jurisdictions assert digital sovereignty and protect their citizens from the harms of inadequately moderated online platforms.
As Babalola noted, the judgment “reinforces a platform accountability standard under Nigerian law, aligning with emerging global jurisprudence” while addressing specifically African concerns about how global platforms operate with different standards in different markets.
With over 51 million Facebook users, 12 million Instagram users, and 50 million WhatsApp accounts, Nigeria represents a market Meta cannot easily abandon. But the country’s regulatory and judicial assertiveness—exemplified by this ruling—makes clear that continued access to that market requires genuine compliance with Nigerian law, not merely token gestures or threats of withdrawal.
The $25,000 awarded to Femi Falana may seem modest, but the legal principles established in securing it could reshape how hundreds of millions of Africans experience digital platforms—and how those platforms calculate the true cost of treating Africa as a regulatory afterthought.
