Alleged Privacy Invasion - Court Rules in Falana’s
Favour, Awards $25,000 Against Meta
In a
landmark judgment delivered on January 13, 2026, the Lagos High Court at Tafawa
Balewa Square awarded $25,000 in damages to renowned human rights lawyer Femi
Falana (SAN) in his privacy invasion case against Meta Platforms Inc., the
U.S.-based technology giant owned by Mark Zuckerberg.
Falana
had filed a $5 million lawsuit against Meta, alleging that the company
published motion images and voice captions on its platform under the name
“AfriCare Health Centre,” falsely suggesting that he suffered from prostatitis.
He argued that this amounted to an invasion of his privacy as guaranteed under
Section 37 of the Nigerian Constitution and violated provisions of the Nigeria
Data Protection Act (NDPA) 2023.
The false
publication, according to Falana, tarnished his reputation, undermined the
image he had built over decades, and caused him significant mental and
emotional distress.
Justice
Olalekan Oresanya, who presided over the case, ruled that Meta owed a duty of
care to individuals affected by content disseminated on its platform,
especially when such content is monetised. The court rejected Meta’s reliance
on the “mere hosting” or “intermediary” defence, stressing that platforms that
profit from content cannot absolve themselves of responsibility when harm from
misinformation is foreseeable.
The
judgment underscored that even public figures retain their right to privacy,
particularly concerning sensitive health data.
The court
found Meta vicariously liable for the offensive video, noting that the company
determines the means and purposes of processing content, monetises pages, and
controls distribution algorithms.
This
effectively positioned Meta as a joint data controller with page owners.
Consequently, the court held that Meta had breached Section 24 of the NDPA by
processing inaccurate, harmful, and unlawful personal data without a legitimate
basis.
The
ruling emphasised that platforms must deploy adequate safeguards, including
effective content review mechanisms and rapid takedown processes, to prevent
foreseeable harm.
Falana’s
lawyer, Olumide Babalola, hailed the judgment as a significant development in
Nigerian jurisprudence, reinforcing platform accountability under the NDPA and
weakening the traditional defence often relied upon by Big Tech. He highlighted
that the case clarified misconceptions in Nigerian practice by affirming that
health data enjoys heightened protection, even for public figures.
This
ruling not only vindicates Falana but also sets a precedent for privacy and
data protection enforcement in Nigeria. It signals a shift towards holding
global technology companies accountable for the accuracy and integrity of
content on their platforms, especially when such content involves sensitive
personal information.
