FALANA WINS PRIVACY INVASION CASE AS COURT ORDERS META TO PAY $25,000 IN DAMAGES
Read Time:3 Minute, 1 Second
By: Muftau Fatimo
The Lagos High Court sitting at Tafawa Balewa Square has awarded $25,000 in damages to Femi Falana (SAN) in his $5 million lawsuit against Meta Platforms Inc., the U.S.-based technology company owned by Mark Zuckerberg, over the alleged invasion of his privacy.
Delivering judgment on Tuesday, Justice Olalekan Oresanya ruled that a global technology company such as Meta, which hosts content for commercial gain, owes a duty of care to individuals affected by material disseminated on its platform.
Falana, represented by his counsel, Olumide Babalola, accused Meta of publishing motion images and voice captions on its website under the title “AfriCare Health Centre,” alleging that he was suffering from a condition known as prostatitis. He contended that the publication amounted to an invasion of his right to privacy as guaranteed under Section 37 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
The suit was instituted pursuant to Sections 24(1)(a) and (e) and Section 34(1)(d) of the Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023, as well as Order 2 Rule 1 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009.
Falana maintained that the false video circulated about his health had damaged his reputation and undermined the name he had built over the years. He argued that the respondent’s publication, which he described as false, offensive, and distressing, portrayed him in a false light and caused him mental and emotional anguish.
READ MORE…
In its judgment, the court dismissed the argument that digital platforms may rely solely on “hosting” or “intermediary” defences where they monetise content and where harm arising from misinformation is reasonably foreseeable.
Falana’s counsel, Olumide Babalola, said the ruling reinforces the standard of platform accountability under Nigerian law, noting that it aligns with evolving global jurisprudence on digital responsibility.
The court further held that Falana’s status as a public figure does not extinguish his right to privacy, finding that the publication of false medical information constituted an unlawful intrusion into his private life irrespective of his public standing.
Babalola said the finding resolves a key misconception in Nigerian legal practice and affirms that health-related data is entitled to enhanced protection, even where the subject is a public figure.
The court further held that Meta determines both the means and purposes of content processing, monetises pages, and controls distribution algorithms, thereby acting as a joint data controller alongside page owners. On that basis, Meta was found vicariously liable for the offensive video.
Describing the ruling as a significant development under the Nigeria Data Protection Act (NDPA), Babalola said it weakens the “mere platform” defence traditionally invoked by major technology companies.
The court further held that Meta breached Section 24 of the Nigeria Data Protection Act (NDPA) by processing personal data that was inaccurate, harmful, without lawful basis, and unfair to the Senior Advocate. It ruled that the dissemination of false health information constituted unlawful processing in itself.
The court stressed that where the risk of inaccuracy is reasonably foreseeable—particularly in relation to sensitive personal data—platforms owe a heightened duty to ensure accuracy and data integrity. It found that Meta failed to put in place adequate safeguards to prevent or mitigate the resulting harm.
As a global technology company with significant technical and financial resources, the court held that Meta was expected to maintain effective content review systems, rapid takedown mechanisms, and safeguards proportionate to the risks posed by misinformation. Its failure to do so was deemed a breach of regulatory obligations.
Happy
0 %
Sad
0 %
Excited
0 %
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
0 %
Surprise
0 %
0
0