The Lagos High Court at TBS has awarded $25,000 in damages in favour of Mr. Femi Falana (SAN) in his $5 million lawsuit against Meta Platforms Inc., the US-based technology company owned by Mark Zuckerberg, over the alleged invasion of his privacy.
Early in 2025, a video was published on Facebook claiming that Falana was suffering from a terminal illness, which prompted the suit
Delivering judgment on Tuesday, January 13, Justice Olalekan Oresanya held that a global technology company such as Meta, which hosts pages for commercial benefit, owes a duty of care to persons affected by content disseminated on its platform.
Falana, through his lawyer, Mr. Olumide Babalola, accused Meta of publishing motion images and voice captions titled “AfriCare Health Centre” on its platform, suggesting that he suffered from a disease known as prostatitis.
He argued that the publication constituted an invasion of his privacy as guaranteed under Section 37 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).
Falana said the false video about his health status had tarnished his image and reputation built over the years.
He also contended that the publication, which he described as false, offensive and disturbing, painted 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 where the platform monetises content and the harm arising from misinformation is reasonably foreseeable.
Falana’s lawyer said the decision reinforces a standard of platform accountability under Nigerian law, aligning with emerging global jurisprudence.
The court further held that “the fact that the applicant is a public figure does not rob him of his right to privacy.” It found that the publication of false medical information intruded into the claimant’s private life, regardless of his public standing.
Babalola said the finding settles an important misconception in Nigerian legal practice and affirms that health data enjoys heightened protection, even for public figures.
The court also held 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.
Consequently, Meta was held vicariously liable for the offensive video.
Babalola said: “This is a major development under the NDPA and weakens the ‘mere platform’ defence traditionally relied upon by Big Tech.”
The court further ruled that Meta breached Section 24 of the NDPA by processing personal data that was inaccurate, harmful, lacked a lawful basis and was unfair to the learned Senior Advocate. The false health information was held to amount to unlawful processing per se.
It emphasised that where the risk of inaccuracy is foreseeable, particularly in relation to sensitive personal data, a platform owes a heightened duty to ensure accuracy and integrity.
The court held that Meta failed to deploy adequate safeguards to prevent or mitigate the harm.
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. Its failure to do so, the court held, amounted to regulatory non-compliance.