Experts raise concerns over Nigerian court’s $25,000 ruling against Meta

The ruling, shared publicly by Falana’s lawyer and data privacy expert Olumide Babalola on LinkedIn, awarded the plaintiff $25,000 in damages. While many have hailed the judgement as a win for user rights and platform accountability, a growing number of experts are questioning the legal logic behind it and the precedent it sets.

In early 2025, a video circulated on Facebook falsely portraying Falana as suffering from a serious medical condition. Although the originator of the content was not clearly identified in the judgement summary, the court held Meta liable, rejecting the company’s argument that it merely hosted third-party content.

The court found that Meta owed a duty of care to users whose personal data and reputation are affected by content distributed on its platforms. It ruled that Meta breached Section 24 of the National Data Protection Act, 2023. According to Babalola, the judge held that Meta could not rely on intermediary or hosting defences once it monetises content and actively controls how that content is distributed.

The court also held that false medical information about an individual, including a public figure, amounts to an invasion of privacy under Nigerian law. It classified Meta as a joint data controller, reasoning that the company determines both the means and purpose of processing user content through its algorithms and commercial systems.

This framing, which positions a global tech platform as an active participant rather than a neutral conduit, is largely unprecedented in Nigeria and represents a significant shift in how courts may approach platform liability.

Expert concerns over the precedent

Following the ruling, legal and privacy experts have raised red flags about its broader implications for users, platforms, and the digital economy.

Gbenga Odugbemi, a legal and privacy expert, argues that the concern is not about sympathy for the claimant but about the legal route taken to reach the outcome.

He says the dispute revolves around false statements, reputational harm, and damages arising from third-party content, which traditionally falls under defamation or negligence, not privacy law. In his view, using privacy law as a shortcut to liability weakens doctrinal clarity and risks undermining legal consistency.

According to Odugbemi, judicial legitimacy depends on applying the correct legal framework to the facts, not selecting the most convenient one.

Advocate Dirontsho Mohale, CEO and Founder of Baakedi Professional Practice, focuses his concern on the court’s designation of Meta as a joint data controller. Nigeria’s Data Protection Act, 2023, defines a data controller as an entity that determines the purpose and means of processing personal data.

Mohale argues that the court’s interpretation stretches this definition too far. In his view, Meta did not decide to process Falana’s personal data by creating or posting the video, and equating algorithmic distribution with joint control misapplies the law.

What this means for Meta and the average user

Globally, Meta is no stranger to regulatory scrutiny. In Europe, it has faced record fines, including a €1.2 billion penalty for unlawful data transfers. The company has also clashed with regulators in Nigeria over data protection enforcement.

Historically, Meta and other global tech companies have relied on intermediary immunity to shield themselves from liability for user-generated content. This ruling, however, challenges that protection where platforms are seen to control distribution and profit from engagement.

The judgement effectively raises expectations for platforms to implement stronger safeguards, including improved content review systems, proactive misinformation detection, and faster takedown processes. For Meta, this could mean higher compliance costs, more complex moderation infrastructure, and greater exposure to litigation, not just in Nigeria but potentially in other African jurisdictions watching closely.

Mohale warns that if Meta does not appeal the decision, it could become a reference point for courts in other countries. Because legal systems often draw on foreign judgements, this case could influence platform liability rulings elsewhere and accelerate similar lawsuits.

Read More: The third party didn’t exist, Falana’s lawyer explains why Nigerian court ruled against Meta

Free speech and over-moderation risks

Beyond corporate impact, experts are worried about the knock-on effects for online speech. Odugbemi cautions that if platforms face liability simply for hosting or algorithmically distributing third-party content, they will respond rationally by over-moderating. This could lead to the removal of lawful speech, including criticism, satire, investigative journalism, and political commentary, just to reduce legal risk.

According to him, the outcome would not be greater user protection but reduced access to information and an expansion of private censorship driven by fear of litigation.

Mohale echoes this concern, noting that stricter controls could negatively affect user experience and limit creativity on social platforms.

There is also a broader startup concern. While Meta can absorb a $25,000 fine or even larger penalties, smaller African tech companies operating social platforms or forums may not survive similar legal exposure.

Several experts warn that if every platform is treated as a joint data controller responsible for user posts, the compliance and legal costs alone could cripple local startups and stifle innovation.

Odugbemi stresses that difficulty in identifying a wrongdoer should not justify shifting liability to a more convenient defendant. In his words, the law should not operate on the principle of suing the microphone when the speaker cannot be found.

The ruling reinforces that constitutional privacy rights and Nigeria’s Data Protection Act are enforceable even against multinational platforms. At the same time, it raises serious questions about balance, legal certainty, and unintended consequences.

Meta has previously hinted that hostile regulatory environments could force it to reconsider its presence in Nigeria. If global platforms begin to see the judicial climate as unpredictable or punitive, investment and service availability could be affected.

For users, the judgement may expand avenues for seeking redress where harmful false content is involved. However, privacy experts stress that this precedent is narrow, fact-specific, and unlikely to apply universally.

This case has cracked open a big conversation about platform responsibility in Africa. Whether it ultimately strengthens user protection or triggers overreach and censorship will depend on how future courts interpret and apply this ruling.