A Lagos High Court sitting at TBS has awarded $25,000 in damages to Mr. Femi Falana (SAN) in his suit against Meta Platforms Inc., the United States–based technology company owned by Mark Zuckerberg, over the alleged invasion of his privacy.
Justice Olalekan Oresanya delivered the judgment in Falana’s $5 million claim, holding that a global technology company such as Meta, which hosts and monetises content on its platform, owes a duty of care to individuals affected by information disseminated thereon.
Falana, represented by his lawyer, Mr. Olumide Babalola, accused Meta of publishing a motion image and voice-captioned content titled “AfriCare Health Centre”, which falsely suggested that he was suffering from prostatitis. He argued that the publication violated his right to privacy as guaranteed under Section 37 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), and damaged his image and reputation built over several decades.
He further contended that the false, offensive and disturbing content portrayed him in a false light and caused him mental and emotional distress.
In its judgment, the court rejected the argument that digital platforms can rely solely on “hosting” or “intermediary” defences, particularly where such platforms monetise content and the harm arising from misinformation is reasonably foreseeable. The court held that Meta could not escape liability in the circumstances of the case.
Justice Oresanya also ruled that Falana’s status as a public figure did not deprive him of his right to privacy. The court found that the publication of false medical information constituted an intrusion into his private life, regardless of his public standing, and affirmed that health data enjoys heightened legal protection.
Related News:
Stampedes: Why police should be held accountable – Femi Falana
The court further held that Meta determines the means and purposes of content processing, monetises pages and controls distribution algorithms, thereby acting as a joint data controller with page owners. On this basis, Meta was found vicariously liable for the offensive publication.
Additionally, the court ruled that Meta breached Section 24 of the Nigeria Data Protection Act (NDPA) by processing inaccurate and harmful personal data without a lawful basis. The false health information was deemed unlawful processing in itself.
The court emphasised that where the risk of inaccuracy is foreseeable—especially in relation to sensitive personal data—platforms owe a heightened duty to ensure accuracy and integrity. It found that Meta failed to deploy adequate safeguards, including effective content-review systems and rapid takedown mechanisms, proportionate to the risks posed by misinformation.
Reacting to the judgment, Falana’s lawyer, Mr. Babalola, described the decision as a significant development in Nigerian data protection law, noting that it reinforces platform accountability and weakens the “mere platform” defence traditionally relied upon by major technology companies.