Meta appeals $25,000 judgment award to Falana over video publication

Meta appeals $25,000 judgment award to Falana over video publication

Meta Platforms Inc. has challenged a judgment of the Lagos state high court that awarded $25,000 in damages to Femi Falana, a senior advocate of Nigeria (SAN).

The appeal, dated April 10, follows the decision in Suit No. LD/18843MFHR/2025, where O. A. Oresanya, the presiding judge, ruled that a video publication violated Falana’s rights.

In a notice of Appeal filed by its 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 wrongly filed under the fundamental rights (enforcement procedure) rules rather than as a defamation claim.

The company said the issues raised relate to alleged false publication and reputational harm, which fall outside constitutional rights enforcement.

Meta added that the trial court assumed jurisdiction it did not possess by entertaining the matter as a fundamental rights suit.

LIABILITY, DATA PROTECTION CONTESTED

Meta rejected the court’s reliance on the doctrine of undisclosed principal to establish liability.

The company said there was no evidence of a principal-agent relationship between it and the publisher of the video, identified as AfriCare Health Centre.

The company added that the content was created and posted by an independent third party, noting that Meta neither originated nor controlled it.

Meta also challenged the finding that it breached provisions of the Nigeria Data Protection Act, arguing it was wrongly classified as a data controller.

The company maintained that there was no evidence it determined the purpose or means of processing the personal data involved.

Meta described the $25,000 damages awarded to Falana as “unjustified” and asked the appellate court to set it aside.

The company further alleged that it was denied fair hearing, claiming the trial court raised issues suo motu without hearing from the parties.

Meta added that key arguments in its defence were not considered before the judgment was delivered.

The appeal now sets the stage for a legal battle that could define the scope of platform responsibility and rights enforcement in Nigeria.