NDPC Asks Court To Dismiss Meta’s Suit Over $32.8m Data Privacy Fine
THECONSCIENCE NG reports the Nigerian Data Protection Commission (NDPC) has asked the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja to dismiss the suit filed by Meta Platforms, Inc. challenging the sanctions imposed on it.
The NDPC had, on February 18, imposed both a remedial fee of $32,800,000 and eight corrective orders against Meta Inc. for allegedly violating the fundamental privacy rights of its Nigerian users concerning behavioural advertising on Facebook and Instagram.
Dissatisfied with the action, Meta Platforms Inc., in a motion ex parte filed on February 26, dragged the regulatory agency to court as the sole respondent.
In the motion ex-parte marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/355/2025 and moved by Fred Onuofia, SAN, on March 4, the court granted one of the two reliefs sought by Meta Platforms Inc.
The court granted leave to Meta to commence proceedings by way of judicial review seeking, inter alia, an order quashing the compliance and enforcement orders dated February 18 issued by NDPC against the company, “and all other investigations, proceedings and actions taken by the respondent against the applicant leading to the “Final Orders.”
The court, however, refused to grant Meta’s relief seeking a stay of the proceedings of all matters relating to the “Final Orders” issued by NDPC against it, pending the hearing and determination of the judicial review proceedings and instead, made an order of accelerated hearing of the suit.
The firm, in its originating summons filed by its lead counsel, Prof. Gbolahan Elias, SAN, wants the court to determine whether NDPC’s investigative process and ensuing compliance and enforcement orders (the Final Orders) issued on February 18 were invalid, null and void.
Meta, in its application filed on March 19, said the commission failed to provide it with adequate notice or an opportunity to be heard on alleged violations of the NDP Act prior to issuing the “Final Orders.”
It argued that such action violated its due process rights, including its right to a fair hearing under Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), among other reliefs.
But, NDPC, in a preliminary objection to Meta’s suit, told the court that the suit is incompetent and that the court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the same.
The regulatory agency, in its application dated April 10 and filed April 11 by its lawyer, Adeola Adedipe, SAN, urged the court to either strike out or dismiss the case.
Adedipe, in two grounds of argument, submitted that the originating summons filed by the company is incompetent for non-compliance with the mandatory provision of Order 34 Rule 6(1) of the FHC (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2019.
He also argued that the suit, as presently constituted, is grossly incompetent and academic, the reliefs sought therein not being capable of activating the jurisdiction of the court and, therefore, liable to be struck out/dismissed.
The commission said in an affidavit attached to the preliminary objection that, the company had filed the suit, seeking leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the respondent taken on February 18 and averred that, there was a statement made pursuant to Order 34 of the Rules of the court, supporting the said application, containing the company’s two reliefs.
It said the court granted permission on March 4 for Meta to commence the proceeding, by way of judicial review and added that the originating summons filed by the plaintiff was commenced on 19th March, 2025, 15 days after leave was granted for the judicial review proceedings to be commenced.
NDPC, however, contended that the reliefs contained in the originating summons were completely different from the reliefs contained in the statement filed to support the ex parte application for judicial review.
It said it believes that this error on the part of Meta was fundamental and “the defendant/applicant (NDPC) does not intend to waive its right to object, in this regard. The defendant/applicant does not intend to waive its rights in challenging these fundamental errors, which are fatal to this proceeding and jurisdiction of the court.”
The commission said it would be in the interest of justice for its objection to be sustained.
Also, in a counter affidavit deposed to by NDPC ‘s staff, Osunleye Olatubosun, in opposition to the originating summons filed by Meta on March 19, he said the suit was brought under the judicial review procedure, primarily, to contest the decision of his office against Meta.
Olatubosun averred that in the NDPC ‘s decision, Meta was sanctioned after a protracted and thorough process of investigation adding that, the investigative power of the commission was activated by a petition written by an organisation, the Personal Data Protection Awareness Initiative (PDPAI), which alleged that, the company breached the data protection rights of users of Facebook and Instagram.
He averred that in the said petition, the plaintiff was alleged to be engaging in behavioural advertising without obtaining explicit consent of data subjects (users), noting that compelling evidence was provided in support of the petition, revealing Meta’s private policy showing that it conducted behavioural advertising without obtaining consent from the data subjects.
The officer, in the counter affidavit filed on April 30, described behavioural advertisement as “a special form of targeted advertising, where consumers are shown advertisements based on their behavioural data.”
He said it is a kind of advertising which collects and tracks individual sensitive information, without their knowledge or consent, to either share with third parties or to decide specialised advertisements to be shown to the consumers.
Olatubosun said, during investigation, NDPC drew the company’s attention to some very disturbing violations in this regard, especially as to non-consensual data processing activities, which he said, included the disclosure of sensitive personal data of minors relating to their sex lives, sensitive personal data of minors involving drug use and sensitive personal data of minor pupils in school, involving erotic dancing.
He said, it also revealed sponsored advertisements on gambling, involving the manipulated personal data of a female journalist on TVC; sponsored advertisement on gambling involving the manipulated personal data of a male journalist on Channels and manipulated personal data of public figures, conspiring to commit a felony, explicit video of a woman delivering a child, with her genitals in full display, etc.
Olatubosun said, Meta was, therefore, found in breach of certain provisions of the Nigeria Data Protection (NDP) Act, and that its promotion of debasing images outside the expectation of concerned data subjects offended the principles of fairness, lawfulness, transparency, accountability and duty of care.
Besides, the officer said, failure of the company to file a compliance audit with the commission for the year 2022 was a breach of the NDP Act and equally said that cross-border transfer of data by Meta contravened mandatory requirements under the NDP Act.
Olatubosun, who said that it was wrong for the plaintiff to process the data of its non-users of it platforms, added that Meta’s privacy policy violates relevant provisions of the NDP Act.
Against these developments, the officer said the commission ordered the firm to, henceforth, “seek express consent of data subjects in Nigeria, where their personal data for behavioural advertising will be processed.
“Carry out Data Processing Impact Assessment, taking into account the democratic development of Nigeria; update its privacy policy; cease and desist from transferring data out of Nigeria without approval of the commission, in line with the NDP Act.
“Create an appropriate icon link for educative videos, on the dangers of manipulative, unlawful and unfair data processing; put in place sufficient measures for the protection of data privacy on its platforms; and payment of 32, 800, 000 USD, Olatubosun said and prayed the court to dismiss the case for lack of merit.
Meanwhile, the trial Judge, Justice James Omotosho, had adjourned the matter till October 3 for a consolidated ruling on the preliminary objection and the motion to amend.
