COURT AWARDS $25,000 AGAINST META IN FALANA’S PRIVACY LAWSUIT OVER FALSE HEALTH CLAIM
A Lagos State High Court sitting at Tafawa Balewa Square has awarded $25,000 in damages against Meta Platforms Inc., owners of Facebook, in favour of renowned human rights lawyer Femi Falana (SAN) over the publication of a false video claiming he was suffering from a terminal illness.
The judgment, delivered on Tuesday by Justice Olalekan Oresanya, held that Meta breached provisions of the Nigeria Data Protection Act (NDPA) by allowing the processing and dissemination of inaccurate and harmful personal data relating to Falana’s health.
The suit followed the circulation of a video on Facebook in early 2025 alleging that Falana was terminally ill. The video, which spread widely on the platform, was described by the court as false, misleading, and damaging.
In his ruling, Justice Oresanya held that the publication amounted to “unlawful processing of sensitive personal data”, stressing that health-related information attracts heightened legal protection under Nigerian law.
The court found that Meta violated Section 24 of the NDPA by processing data that was “inaccurate, harmful, lacking lawful basis, and unfair” to the claimant.
Falana instituted the action through his counsel, Mr Olumide Babalola, challenging Meta’s role in hosting and monetising the video without adequate safeguards or timely intervention.
Meta Platforms Inc. was represented by Mr Tayo Oyetibo (SAN).
In a significant pronouncement on digital accountability, the court rejected Meta’s argument that it merely acted as a passive hosting platform.
“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,” Justice Oresanya ruled.
The judge further held that where a platform monetises content and the harm from misinformation is reasonably foreseeable, it cannot escape liability by claiming intermediary status. He noted that this position aligns with emerging global jurisprudence on platform accountability.
Justice Oresanya also dismissed arguments suggesting that Falana’s status as a public figure diminished his privacy rights.
“The fact that the claimant is a public figure does not deprive him of his right to privacy,” the court ruled, adding that the publication of false medical information constitutes an intrusion into private life regardless of public status.
Read Also: EFCC RETURNS ₦802 MILLION TO FIRST BANK AFTER SYSTEM GLITCH FRAUD
The court further found that Meta determines how content is processed and distributed on Facebook through its algorithms, monetises pages, and controls content visibility. On this basis, the judge held that Meta acts as a joint data controller alongside page owners and is vicariously liable for unlawful content circulated on its platform.
Meta was also faulted for failing to deploy adequate content moderation systems, prompt takedown mechanisms, and safeguards proportionate to the risks posed by health-related misinformation.
According to the court, Meta’s failure amounted to non-compliance with its statutory obligations under the NDPA