In a landmark judgment that could redefine how big tech operates in Nigeria, a Lagos State High Court has ruled in favour of renowned human rights lawyer Femi Falana, SAN, against Meta Platforms Inc., the parent company of Facebook and Instagram.
The ruling, delivered on January 13, 2026, awarded Falana $25,000 in damages over a viral video that circulated on Meta’s platforms and made false medical claims about him.
The decision challenges Meta’s long-standing position that it merely hosts third-party content and should not be held responsible for what users post.
Why the Court Held Meta Liable
According to details shared by privacy lawyer and expert Olumide Babalola, the court found that Meta went beyond being a passive intermediary.
The judge held that Meta exercises significant control over how content is distributed, amplified, and monetised through its algorithms. This level of control, the court said, makes Meta a joint data controller rather than a neutral platform.
Under Nigeria’s Data Protection Act (NDPA), false medical information—even when it concerns a public figure—constitutes a privacy violation. The court ruled that Meta breached its duty of care by allowing the content to continue circulating on its platforms.
A Controversial Legal Path
Despite the win for Falana, the judgment has triggered debate within Nigeria’s legal and privacy communities.
Legal practitioner Gbenga Odugbemi questioned the use of privacy law as the basis for the ruling. He argued that the case would have been more appropriately handled under defamation or negligence.
“Privacy law isn’t a shortcut for every kind of harm,” Odugbemi warned, suggesting that stretching the NDPA beyond its intended scope could weaken future cases instead of strengthening accountability.
What This Means for Meta—and Everyone Else
Others see the ruling as a potential turning point. Advocate Dirontsho Mohale cautioned that if platforms are deemed joint data controllers simply because they distribute and recommend content, the implications could be far-reaching.
Such a precedent could force tech companies to rethink content moderation, algorithmic amplification, and liability exposure in Nigeria. For everyday users, it raises new questions about what protections they can realistically expect when harmful or false content spreads online.
While it remains to be seen whether Meta will appeal the decision, the case signals a growing willingness by Nigerian courts to scrutinise the power and responsibility of global tech platforms operating within the country.
For Meta, the message is clear: in Nigeria, being “just the middleman” may no longer be a viable defence.
