By Ghazali Ibrahim
Meta, the parent company of Facebook, argued before a Lagos State High Court that it should not be subjected to the court’s jurisdiction in a privacy suit filed by human rights lawyer Femi Falana, but the court rejected the defence and ruled against the tech giant.
During proceedings, Meta maintained that it merely operates as a platform hosting third-party content and therefore should not be held liable for material posted by users.
The company’s argument was anchored on the claim that responsibility for the controversial video allegedly containing false health information about Falana rested with the original uploader, not the platform itself.
However, in an appeal dated April 10, 2026, challenging the judgment in Suit No. LD/18843MFHR/2025: Falana v. Meta Platforms, Inc., Meta argued that Justice O. A. Oresanya ruling in favour of Falana and awarded $25,000 in damages over a video publication alleged to have violated his rights is not accepted and urging the appeal court to set it aside.
In its Notice of Appeal, filed by a legal team led by Mofesomo Tayo-Oyetibo, SAN, Meta outlined eight grounds contesting both the procedural and substantive aspects of the High Court’s decision.
Central to the appeal is a jurisdictional argument, with the company asserting that the trial court erred by treating the matter as a fundamental rights enforcement action.
Meta maintained that the claims were essentially based on alleged false publication and reputational harm, which fall under defamation law rather than constitutional rights enforcement, and argued that by allowing the case to proceed under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, the court assumed jurisdiction it did not possess.
However, the court declined to accept this position, proceeding to hear the case on its merits.
In its judgment, the court held that Meta’s role goes beyond that of a passive intermediary, noting that the company controls content distribution, monetises posts, and determines how information is disseminated to users.
The court further ruled that such control establishes a duty of care, making the company accountable for harmful and inaccurate content circulated on its platform, particularly where sensitive personal data is involved.
As a result, the court found Meta liable for violating Falana’s right to privacy after a video falsely claimed he was suffering from a serious medical condition. It subsequently awarded the senior advocate $25,000 in damages.
