Meta Appeals $25,000 Damages Award to Falana Over Video Publication
Meta Platforms Inc. has filed an appeal challenging a Lagos State High Court judgment that awarded $25,000 in damages to Femi Falana, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN).
The appeal, dated April 10, follows the ruling in Suit No. LD/18843MFHR/2025, in which Justice O. A. Oresanya held that a video publication violated Falana’s fundamental rights.
In its notice of appeal, filed by a legal team led by Mofesomo Tayo-Oyetibo, Meta is seeking to overturn the judgment in its entirety.
Jurisdiction Dispute
Meta argued that the case was improperly instituted under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules rather than as a defamation suit.
The company maintained that the claims relate to alleged false publication and reputational damage, which do not fall within the scope of constitutional rights enforcement.
It further contended that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by hearing the matter as a fundamental rights case.
Liability and Data Protection Issues
Meta also challenged the court’s reliance on the doctrine of undisclosed principal to establish its liability.
According to the company, there is no evidence of any principal-agent relationship between it and the publisher of the video, identified as AfriCare Health Centre. It argued that the content was created and posted by an independent third party, without its involvement or control.
The company further disputed the court’s finding that it violated provisions of the Nigeria Data Protection Act, insisting it was wrongly classified as a data controller.
Meta said there was no evidence that it determined the purpose or means of processing the personal data referenced in the case.
Fair Hearing and Damages
Meta described the $25,000 damages awarded to Falana as “unjustified” and urged the appellate court to set aside the decision.
It also alleged a denial of fair hearing, claiming the trial court raised issues suo motu without giving parties the opportunity to address them.
The company added that key elements of its defence were not considered before judgment was delivered.
The appeal sets the stage for a potentially significant legal contest that could shape the boundaries of platform liability and the enforcement of fundamental rights in Nigeria.