By Eteteonline
On Tuesday, January 13, 2026, a Lagos High Court in Ikeja granted Mr. Femi Falana (SAN) $25,000 in damages in his $5 million lawsuit against Meta Platforms Inc. for allegedly violating his privacy after Facebook posted a photo of the Nigerian human rights attorney that falsely claimed he was terminally ill.
Falana accused Meta of posting motion pictures and audio descriptions with the title “AfriCare Health Centre” on its site, implying that he had prostatitis, through his attorney, Olumide Babalola.
According to Section 37 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), he claimed that the publishing violated his right to privacy.
Falana said that his long-established reputation and image had been damaged by the misleading film regarding his health.
Additionally, he argued that the publication misrepresented him and caused him mental and emotional hardship, calling it insulting, frightening, and inaccurate.
According to the court, a multinational technology corporation like Meta, which hosts pages for profit, has a responsibility to protect users impacted by information shared on its network.
The claim that digital platforms can only use “hosting” or “intermediary” defenses in cases where they monetize content and the harm caused by false information is reasonably foreseeable was rejected.
Additionally, the court ruled that “the fact that the applicant is a public figure does not rob him of his right to privacy.” Regardless of the claimant’s public status, it was determined that the dissemination of inaccurate medical information violated his privacy.
The court further ruled that Meta functions as a joint data controller with page owners by deciding how and why to process material, monetizing pages, and managing distribution algorithms. As a result, the offending video made Meta accountable vicariously.
The court additionally determined that Meta had violated Section 24 of the Nigerian Data Protection Act (NDPA) 2023 by processing personal data that was unfair to the learned Senior Advocate, detrimental, erroneous, and lacking a legitimate basis.
It underlined that a platform has an increased obligation to guarantee accuracy and integrity in situations when the danger of error is predictable, especially when it comes to sensitive personal data.
The court determined that Meta did not implement sufficient measures to stop or lessen the damage.
Meta was expected to put in place efficient content-review procedures, quick removal procedures, and security measures commensurate with the dangers posed by false information because it is a multinational technological firm with substantial resources. The court determined that its failure to do so constituted regulatory non-compliance.
According to Babalola, the ruling clarifies a significant misunderstanding in Nigerian law and confirms that health information is protected to a higher degree, even for well-known individuals.
In line with new international jurisprudence, the ruling upholds a platform accountability requirement under Nigerian law.
“This is a major development under the NDPA and weakens the ‘mere platform’ defence traditionally relied upon by Big Tech,” Babalola said.
Add comment