“Respondent In Breach Of Duty To Ensure Accuracy Of Publications Posted By Third Parties” — Court Rules Meta Violated Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023 [JUDGEMENT]

The High Court of Lagos State delivered a judgment in Suit No. LD/17783MFHR/2025: Femi Falana v. Meta Platforms, awarding $25,000,000 (Twenty-Five Million US Dollars) in general damages against Meta Platforms, owners of Facebook, for breaching the fundamental right to privacy and data protection rights of the renowned human rights lawyer, Femi Falana, SAN.

Justice Olalekan A. Oresanya delivered the judgment on January 13, 2026, dismissing Meta’s preliminary objection challenging the court’s jurisdiction and ruling comprehensively in favour of the senior advocate.

Falana had discovered on January 16, 2025, that a video was posted on Meta’s Facebook platform (www.facebook.com) under a page named “AfriCare Health Centre” claiming that he had been battling prostatitis for over 16 years, that at the age of 50 he was diagnosed with the condition, and that every day he faced pain, discomfort and constant fatigue.

In a 22-paragraph affidavit, Falana stated that his health is part of his private life and that he has never suffered any disease known as prostatitis in his life. He stated that he has never had any dealing with the Respondent or its page on issues with his health life, that the video and its contents are false, inaccurate, misleading and unfair to him, and that the video paints him in a false light and as such is an invasion of his privacy.

Falana sought declarations that the continued publication violated his right to privacy guaranteed by Section 37 of the Constitution and Section 24(1)(a) and (e) of the Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023, an order mandating Meta to remove the video, and general damages in the sum of $5,000,000 (Five Million US Dollars).

Meta, through its counsel, filed a preliminary objection dated June 20, 2025, seeking to strike out the suit for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that:

1. It is located in the United States of America, outside Lagos State and the Federal Capital Territory, and therefore outside the court’s jurisdiction
2. Section 97 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act (SCPA) requires endorsement for service of originating summons outside Nigeria, which the Applicant failed to comply with
3. It is an intermediary service provider which did not create or post the video at issue
4. The video was removed on April 25, 2025, upon being made aware of it, before service of the originating process
5. The claim is in fact a tort claim and should be dismissed as it is improperly framed as a fundamental rights action

Justice Oresanya dismissed Meta’s preliminary objection as “lacking in merit and substance.”

The court held that Section 97 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act is NOT applicable to Fundamental Rights Enforcement actions.

“Applying the literal and purposive rules of interpretation to the above stated provision of Section 97, this Court is of a well considered view that the provision of Section 97 is not applicable to Origination Motion in a Fundamental Right Enforcement action. Where the words of a Statute are clear and unambiguous, it must be given their plain ordinary meaning in order to give effect to intention of the makers of the Law,” Justice Oresanya stated.

“Section 97 specifically refers to writ of summons and if any other originating summons were to be included, it would have been mentioned. Express mention or specific mention of one thing excludes other things mentioned.”

The court further held: “Fundamental Rights Enforcement action is sui generis and the enforcement procedure is specifically stated in the Constitution and provisions overrides any other Law enactment or Statute.”

Meta had argued that Falana’s claim was in fact a tort claim and should be dismissed as improperly framed as a fundamental rights action under Section 37 of the Constitution.

The court disagreed, holding: “It is well settled that a single transaction or event can give rise to multiple causes of action. It could amount to a breach of contract, infringement of Fundamental Rights, commission of a tort and it could also amount to a crime or an offence under a written law/enactment as the case may be.”

“It is always within the right of an aggrieved or injured party to elect and pursue and or all of the causes of action open to him once a reasonable cause of action is disclosed notwithstanding that the cause of action is weak or unlikely to succeed. It is not for an alleged party in breach to suggest or impose a cause of action that an aggrieved party should pursue.”

Justice Oresanya’s judgment contains significant pronouncements on the right to privacy under Nigerian law.

“Section 37 of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 guarantees the fundamental right to privacy, protecting citizens’ homes, correspondence, telephone calls and telegraphic communications from unlawful intrusion, forming the basis for data privacy rights and serves as a Constitutional bedrock for data protection and protects against invasive surveillance of private life and communications,” the court held.

“It is my well considered view that a Statement or publication in a video made without the consent of the party concerned irrespective of whether the statement be true or false which contains an imputation that the person has a terminal or contagious disease has the tendency to put that person in a false light and amounts to a violation of the right to privacy of that person and is actionable perse i.e even without proof of actual damage or injury and also created a potential case of strict liability on the part of the person who made the statement or publication.”

Importantly, the court held: “The fact that the Applicant is a public figure does not mean that he has no right to his privacy. The relevant Constitutional provision on privacy (Section 37, 1999 Constitution) did not make a destination between a public figure and a private person, the right to privacy is available to all persons irrespective of their status ethnicity, origin, sex, nationality, race or colour and so on.”

Meta had argued that as an intermediary hosting provider, it cannot be held liable for content published on its platform by a third party unless properly notified and fails to take action.

The court rejected this defense comprehensively.

“I must state that the defence of innocent dissemination and Jus terti (act of a third party) will not avail the Respondent. The Applicant is not a party to the Terms of service and community standard between the Respondents and third parties who made use of the Respondent’s platform who has both actual and constructive knowledge of the publications sent to its platform,” Justice Oresanya held.

“The Respondent is vicariously liable for the publication placed on its platform by third parties and reserves the right to pursue a claim against the third party with who it has privity of contract.”

The court further held: “The Respondent as intermediary hosting provider who claimed that the publication was made by a third party who is unknown or named by the Respondent is presumed to be acting on behalf of an unnamed or undisclosed principal. It is a settled principle of agency that the act of an agent binds the principal and vice versa. It is always within the right of an aggrieved party to choose whether to proceed against the agent or the undisclosed principal and where an agent contracts on behalf of a non-existent principal as it is in the instant case where the identity of the third party who posted the video in contention has not been revealed by the Respondent, the Respondent is liable to be sued by the Applicant for the said publication posted on the Respondent’s website.”

The court held that Meta breached provisions of the Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023.

“Section 24(1)(a) and (e) of the Nigerian Data Protection Act 2023 which enjoins controller of data to administer same in a Lawful, fair just and reasonable manner. The Respondent is clearly in breach of the duty of care in ensuring the accuracy and the integrity of the publication posted on its platform by third parties with whom it had a contractual relationship irrespective whether it had actual or constructive knowledge of the publication.”

“The risk of inaccuracy and potential liability for violation of right to privacy of others are foreseeable and the Respondent a global commercial technology company ought to have provided adequate safeguards against such risk.”

The court addressed Meta’s argument that damages could not be awarded in this case.

“The contention and argument of the Respondent that damages is only recoverable where the violation involve breach of a person’s right to liberty under Section 35(6) of the constitution and compulsory acquisition of property by Government under Section 44(1)(a) is misconceived and seriously misplaced. The Court has power to award damages in deserving cases whether the matter relates to fundamental rights enforcement or any other civil claim.”

Despite Falana seeking $5 million in damages, the court awarded significantly more.

The court granted the following orders:

1. Relief 1 Granted: A declaration that the Respondent’s continued publication of the Applicant’s name, still and motion images and purported voice on a page and video captioned “AfriCare Health Centre” on their platform (www.facebook.com) to the effect that the Applicant suffered from a disease known as “prostatitis” constitutes an invasion of the Applicant’s privacy guaranteed by Section 37 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.
2. Relief 2 Granted: A declaration that the Respondent’s continued retention of the video captioned “AfriCare Health Centre” on their platform (www.facebook.com) is false, inaccurate, misleading and unfair to the Applicant and thereby violates the provision of Section 24(1)(a) and (e) of the Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023.
3. Relief 3 Struck Out: The order mandating Meta to remove/erase/delete the video was struck out in view of the removal of the video publication by Meta.
4. General Damages of $25,000,000 (Twenty-Five Million US Dollars) awarded in favour of the Applicant for breach of the Applicant’s right to privacy and breach of the Data Protection right of the Applicant by the Respondent.

Olumide Babalola with Moheeb Owodunni appeared for the Applicant (Falana).

Lukwagh Mgbanyi holding the brief of Paul Mgbeoma appeared for Meta.

Add TheNigeriaLawyer On Google News _______________________________________________________________________ New Year Promo: Get Five Maritime Law Books For N150,000 — 63% Discount The promotion, which commenced on January 8 and runs until February 8, 2026, offers five core maritime law books authored by Dr. Emeka Akabogu, SAN, ordinarily valued at N405,000, for just N150,000 — a 63% discount. Interested buyers can place their orders through the following channels: Phone: 0704 329 3271 Online Store: https://paystack.shop/aa-bookstore Website: www.akabogulaw.com _______________________________________________________________________ The Law And Practice Of Redundancy In Nigeria: A Practitioner’s Guide, Authored By A Labour & Employment Law Expert Bimbo Atilola _______________________________________________________________________

[A MUST HAVE] Evidence Act Demystified With Recent And Contemporary Cases And Materials

Available now for NGN 40,000 at ASC Publications, 10, Boyle Street, Onikan, Lagos. Beside High Court, TBS. Email publications@ayindesanni.com or WhatsApp +2347056667384. Purchase Link: https://paystack.com/buy/evidence-act-complete-annotation

______________________________________________________________________ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE FOR LAWYERS: A COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE Reimagine your practice with the power of AI “...this is the only Nigerian book I know of on the topic.” — Ohio Books Ltd Authored by Ben Ijeoma Adigwe, Esq., ACIArb (UK), LL.M, Dip. in Artificial Intelligence, Director, Delta State Ministry of Justice, Asaba, Nigeria. Bonus: Get a FREE eBook titled “How to Use the AI in Legalpedia and Law Pavilion” with every purchase.

How to Order: 📞 Call, Text, or WhatsApp: 08034917063 | 07055285878 📧 Email: benadigwe1@gmail.com 🌐 Website: www.benadigwe.com

Ebook Version: Access directly online at: https://selar.com/prv626