Imo court rejects $25m privacy claim against Meta

The Imo State High Court in Iho has dismissed a $25 million fundamental rights case brought against Meta Platforms Inc. over alleged violations of privacy and data protection rights. Justice L.

C. Alinnor struck out the case on 21 July, according to a certified judgment shared with PREMIUM TIMES. The applicant, Chika Chukwuemeka, alleged that Meta collected, processed and profiled her personal data for behavioural advertising without her consent.

She argued that the alleged conduct breached her constitutional right to privacy and provisions of the Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023. She also alleged that Meta lacked a lawful basis for processing her data, failed to meet transparency requirements, transferred data outside Nigeria and did not conduct an adequate Data Protection Impact Assessment. Justice Alinnor ruled that Chukwuemeka had not provided sufficient evidence to establish a violation of her rights or show how the alleged infringement had been carried out by the respondents.

The judge therefore dismissed the suit and made no order as to costs. A central part of Chukwuemeka’s case was a final order issued by the Nigeria Data Protection Commission. She relied on that order in arguing that Meta had breached the rights of more than 60 million Nigerian data subjects and had been fined $32.8 million.

Meta later challenged the commission’s action at the Federal High Court in Abuja. The parties settled, and the court adopted their terms of settlement, setting aside the commission’s final orders. Alinnor said that decision removed the foundation of Chukwuemeka’s claim.

Meta denied the allegations, arguing that the applicant had not shown her individual data was processed unlawfully. Through its lawyer, Paul Mgbeoma, the company said Facebook and Instagram users agree to terms explaining the use of data for personalised experiences and advertising, and that consent is not the only lawful basis for processing under Nigerian law. The court rejected Meta’s preliminary objections on service and territorial jurisdiction before considering the substantive claim.

It held that the online activities complained of could be accessed in Imo State and that the relevant service terms did not impose the restriction Meta attributed to them.