The High Court of Lagos State, Ikorodu Judicial Division, presided over by Honourable Justice A.F. Pokanu, has held Meta Platforms, Inc. liable for violating the privacy and data protection rights of the Applicants through the non-consensual collection, processing, profiling and use of their personal data for behavioural advertising.
The judgment was delivered on Friday, 25 September 2026, in an action instituted by the Incorporated Trustees of Laws and Rights Awareness Initiative and five other Applicants against Meta Platforms, Inc.
The Applicants challenged Meta’s processing of their personal data for behavioural advertising, contending that the processing was undertaken without their explicit, and informed consent and without a lawful basis under the Nigeria Data Protection Act, 2023.
They further alleged that Meta breached its obligations of transparency and duty of care, failed to implement adequate technical and organizational measures for the protection of their personal data, and unlawfully transferred their personal data across borders without the safeguards required by law.
In its defence, Meta argued that users of Facebook and Instagram voluntarily accepted its Terms of Service and Privacy Policy before accessing and using the platforms. Meta also maintained that its data centresare located outside Nigeria and that appropriate safeguards were in place in respect of international data transfers.
The Court, however, found that Meta had not demonstrated that the Applicants had accepted its Terms of Service and Privacy Policy in a manner sufficient to establish valid consent for the processing of their personal data for behavioural advertising.
Justice Pokanu held that behavioural advertising, profiling, cross-platform tracking and advertising analytics were not indispensable to the provision of Meta’s core social networking services and, therefore, could not be regarded as contractually necessary processing.
The Court also found that Meta failed to meet the transparency requirements imposed by the Nigeria Data Protection Act, 2023. According to the Court, the information made available to users did not sufficiently or clearly communicate the nature, scope, purposes and legal basis of Meta’s data processing activities.
On the issue of international data transfers, the Court rejected the contention that Meta’s global infrastructure or the absence of data centres in Nigeria, in itself, provided a lawful basis for transferring users’ personal data outside Nigeria. The Court found that Meta had not demonstrated compliance with the safeguards for cross-border transfers prescribed under sections 41–43 of the Nigeria Data Protection Act, 2023.
The Court consequently declared that Meta’s non-consensual collection, processing, profiling and use of the Applicants’ personal data for behaviouraladvertising violated their fundamental right to privacy guaranteed under Section 37 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended.
The Court further declared that Meta’s processing of the Applicants’ personal data without a lawful basis violated sections 24 and 25 of the Nigeria Data Protection Act, 2023, while the use of the data for behavioural advertising was found to be inconsistent with the principles of fairness and purpose limitation.
Justice Pokanu also held that Meta breached its duty of care by failing to implement appropriate technical and organisational measures to protect the Applicants’ personal data and failed to satisfy the transparency obligations imposed by the Act.
As part of the reliefs granted, the Court ordered Meta to cease all unlawful processing of the Applicants’ personal data, including processing for behaviouraladvertising without a lawful basis. Meta was further directed to take immediate remedial measures to bring its data processing operations in Nigeria into compliance with the Nigeria Data Protection Act, 2023, and to file an affidavit of compliance within eight weeks of the judgment.
The Court awarded general damages equivalent to US$100,000 in favour of the Applicants, together with post-judgment interest at the prevailing Central Bank of Nigeria rate until the judgment debt is fully liquidated. The Court also awarded ₦1 million as costs in favour of the Applicants.
However, the Court declined to award the US$100 million claimed as exemplary damages, holding that the Applicants had not satisfied the Court that the circumstances justified such an award.