Court fines Meta $25,000 for spreading false illness claim about Falana

A Lagos State High Court sitting at Tafawa Balewa Square has ordered Meta Platforms Inc. to pay $25,000 in damages to human rights lawyer, Mr Femi Falana (SAN), over the publication of a false Facebook video alleging that he was suffering from a terminal illness.

The ruling followed a suit filed by Falana after a video circulated on Facebook in early 2025 falsely portrayed him as critically ill. He instituted the action through his lawyer, Mr Olumide Babalola, accusing Meta of unlawfully processing his personal and medical data.

In a judgment delivered on Tuesday, Justice Olalekan Oresanya held that Meta violated Section 24 of the Nigeria Data Protection Act (NDPA) by allowing the processing of Falana’s personal data in a manner that was inaccurate, harmful, unfair and without lawful justification.

The judge ruled that the publication of false health information amounted to the unlawful processing of sensitive personal data, stressing that medical information enjoys heightened legal protection under Nigerian law.

Justice Oresanya made far-reaching findings on the obligations of digital platforms, holding that a global technology company such as Meta, which derives commercial benefit from hosted content, owes a duty of care to individuals affected by material circulated on its platform.

He rejected Meta’s claim that it merely functioned as a neutral intermediary, ruling that where a platform monetises content and the risk of harm from misinformation is reasonably foreseeable, it cannot escape liability. The court noted that this approach reflects emerging judicial thinking on platform accountability worldwide.

The court further held that Falana’s status as a public figure did not strip him of his right to privacy. According to the judge, the dissemination of false medical information constitutes an unjustified intrusion into private life, regardless of a person’s public standing.

Justice Oresanya also found that Meta exercises control over the means and purposes of content processing on Facebook, monetises pages and determines content reach through algorithmic systems. On that basis, the court held that Meta acts as a joint data controller with page owners and is vicariously liable for unlawful content published on the platform.

The judge faulted Meta for failing to deploy sufficient safeguards to prevent or limit the harm caused by the misinformation. He held that, given its vast technological and financial resources, the company was expected to maintain effective content moderation structures, swift takedown mechanisms and risk-proportionate safeguards against harmful publications.

The failure to do so, the court concluded, amounted to a breach of Meta’s statutory obligations under the NDPA.

Meta was represented in the suit by Mr Tayo Oyetibo (SAN).