Meta Appeals $25,000 Judgment In Falana Privacy Case

Meta Platforms Inc., the parent company of social networking platform Facebook, has appealed the Lagos State High Court’s judgment awarding human rights lawyer, Mr Femi Falana (SAN) $25,000 for the company’s invasion of his privacy.

In an appeal filed before the Lagos Division of the Court of Appeal, the global technology firm argued that the trial judge, Justice Olalekan Oresanya, erred in treating the case as a fundamental rights enforcement action rather than a defamation suit.

Falana had dragged the United States of America-based organisation before the court over the publication of a false video about his health status, which he claimed damaged his image and the name he had built over the years.

In his judgment, Justice Oresanya held that a global tech firm such as Meta, which hosts pages for commercial purposes, has a duty of care toward individuals impacted by content on its platform.

In the notice of appeal, dated 10th April, 2026, Meta Platforms, Inc., outlined eight grounds challenging both the procedural and substantive aspects of the High Court’s decision.

The applicant contended that the claims were primarily based on alleged false publication and reputational damage—matters that should fall within the scope of defamation law rather than constitutional rights enforcement.

Meta maintained that by allowing the case to proceed under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, the court assumed jurisdiction it did not have.

The appellant rejected the trial court’s liability finding based on the doctrine of undisclosed principal.

It asserted that there was no evidence of a principal-agent relationship between Meta and the video’s publisher, identified as “AfriCare Health Centre.”

Meta argued that the content was created and posted by an independent third party and that, as an intermediary platform, it neither originated nor exercised editorial control over the material.

The firm also contended that the court’s ruling that Meta violated Section 24(1)(a) and (e) of the Nigeria Data Protection Act lacks support from the facts provided.

The company insisted it was wrongly classified as a data controller, asserting there was no evidence it determined the purpose or means of processing the personal data involved in the publication.

Meta also challenged the $25,000 damages award to Falana, claiming it was unwarranted in the circumstances. It urged the appellate court to overturn the award along with the entire judgment.

Expressing concerns about procedural fairness, Meta alleged that it was denied a fair hearing during the trial.

It claimed that the trial court raised and resolved issues suo motu without inviting submissions from the parties, and failed to address key arguments raised in its defence.