Court throws out $25 million privacy case against Meta in Delta

The Imo State High Court in Iho has dismissed a $25 million suit against Meta Platforms Inc. The case was about alleged privacy and data protection violations.

According to a judgment shared with PREMIUM TIMES on Monday, Justice L. C. Alinnor dismissed the case on 21 July.

The applicant, Chika Chukwuemeka, accused Meta of collecting and using her personal data for advertising without her permission. She claimed this violated her right to privacy under Section 37 of the Nigerian Constitution and the Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023.

But Justice Alinnor ruled that she did not provide enough evidence to show that Meta violated her privacy rights or processed her data unlawfully. "From the totality of the affidavit evidence adduced in this case, the submissions of counsel and all the authorities relied upon by the honourable court, I find that the applicant failed to satisfactorily prove the infringement of her fundamental rights, or show how the alleged infringement was orchestrated by the respondents."

He added, "That being the case, this suit is completely lacking in merit, and the same is hereby dismissed. I make no order as to costs."

A major part of Ms Chukwuemeka’s case relied on a Final Order from the Nigeria Data Protection Commission (NDPC) against Meta. She used this to argue that the commission found Meta violated the privacy rights of over 60 million Nigerians and fined the company.

Later, Meta challenged the NDPC’s action in the Federal High Court in Abuja. The two parties settled, and the court set aside the NDPC’s Final Orders against Meta. This development was important in Ms Chukwuemeka’s case.

Justice Alinnor said that the NDPC order, now set aside, could not support her claim. "With the setting aside of the Final Order, the very substratum upon which the applicant built her case, collapsed," he said.

Ms Chukwuemeka wanted the court to decide if Meta’s collection and use of her data for advertising without her consent violated her privacy. She also claimed that Meta processed her data without a lawful basis, did not meet transparency requirements, transferred her data outside Nigeria unlawfully, and did not conduct a proper Data Protection Impact Assessment.

She asked the court to stop Meta from processing her data unlawfully and to make the company follow the Data Protection Act in Nigeria. She also sought $10 million in general damages and $15 million in exemplary damages, plus interest on the judgment debt.

Meta’s lawyer, Paul Mgbeoma, denied the allegations. The company argued that Ms Chukwuemeka did not show evidence that her data was processed unlawfully or transferred outside Nigeria against the law.

Meta also stated that users agree to its terms when they register on Facebook and Instagram. The company explained that its services are partly funded by personalized advertising and that users’ data is processed to provide these experiences.

Meta said consent is not the only lawful reason for processing personal data under the Nigeria Data Protection Act. Before looking at the main claim, the court addressed Meta’s initial objection.

The company claimed it had not been properly served with the legal documents and that these documents were not endorsed for service outside Imo State. Meta also argued that the suit could not be brought under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules because most claims dealt with the Data Protection Act rather than a direct violation of rights.

Meta further challenged the Imo State High Court’s jurisdiction, saying its terms required disputes to be settled in California. The court rejected these objections.

On the service issue, Justice Alinnor stated that Sections 97, 98, and 99 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act do not apply to fundamental rights cases. The judge referred to a 2024 Court of Appeal ruling that confirmed this.

The court also accepted that the processes were served on Meta at an address in Ikoyi, Lagos. Justice Alinnor also rejected Meta’s claim that the Imo State High Court did not have jurisdiction.

The judge explained that the dispute involved internet activities accessible across different areas. Citing a 2021 decision, he said jurisdiction could apply where online material was accessed.

He noted that the activities Ms Chukwuemeka complained about were accessible in Imo State. Meta had argued that its terms required disputes about commercial use to be resolved under U.S. law in California.

But Justice Alinnor clarified that the relevant provisions did not contain such restrictions. The judge said the provision referred to users as "consumers" and did not make a distinction between private and commercial use. The court dismissed Meta’s preliminary objection.

After settling the jurisdiction issues, the court looked at whether Ms Chukwuemeka proved a violation of her constitutional right to privacy. Justice Alinnor noted that a fundamental rights action must mainly focus on enforcing a fundamental right and cannot rely only on a related constitutional issue.

He referred to the 2026 Supreme Court decision in Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria (Taraba State Chapter) v AMCON. Although most of Ms Chukwuemeka’s claims were about the Nigeria Data Protection Act, the judge assessed if the alleged processing of her data could breach her constitutional right to privacy.

Justice Alinnor confirmed that Section 37 of the Constitution protects personal information. He stated that personal data can be part of the right to privacy.

The judge also cited a previous case that recognized personal data as part of the information protected by the constitutional right to privacy. The court then checked the evidence supporting Ms Chukwuemeka’s claims.

Justice Alinnor identified the NDPC Final Order as the main evidence used by the applicant. However, he pointed out that this order had been set aside due to the settlement between Meta and the NDPC.

The judge ruled that Ms Chukwuemeka could not use the order to prove that Meta violated her rights. He then looked for other evidence to support her claims. The court found that she had not provided enough evidence.

The judge concluded that Ms Chukwuemeka did not show how Meta infringed her privacy rights or processed her personal data unlawfully. The court therefore found no basis to grant the declarations, injunctions, and damages she sought.