Court dismisses $25 million privacy suit against Meta in Delta

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

According to the certified true copy of the judgement shared with PREMIUM TIMES on Monday, Justice L. C. Alinnor struck out the case on 21 July.

The applicant, Chika Chukwuemeka, had accused Meta of collecting, processing and profiling her personal data for behavioural advertising without her consent.

She alleged that the company’s actions violated her right to privacy under Section 37 of the Nigerian constitution and provisions of the Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023.

But Mr Alinnor held that she failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish that Meta had violated her privacy rights or unlawfully processed her personal data.

“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.

“That being the case, this suit is completely lacking in merit, and the same is hereby dismissed. I make no order as to costs,” the judge ruled.

A major part of Ms Chukwuemeka’s case was based on a Final Order issued by the Nigeria Data Protection Commission (NDPC) against Meta.

She relied on the order to argue that the commission had found that Meta violated the privacy and data protection rights of more than 60 million Nigerian data subjects and had imposed a $32.8 million fine on the company.

Meta later challenged the NDPC’s action before the Federal High Court in Abuja, where the parties settled. The court adopted the terms of settlement and the NDPC’s Final Orders against Meta were set aside.

That development became important in Ms Chukwuemeka’s case.

Mr Alinnor held that the NDPC order, having been set aside, could no longer provide the basis for her claim.

“With the setting aside of the Final Order, the very substratum upon which the applicant built her case, collapsed,” Mr Alinnor held.

What the applicant claimed

Ms Chukwuemeka asked the court to determine whether Meta’s collection, processing, profiling and use of her personal data for behavioural advertising without her explicit consent violated her right to privacy.

She also alleged that Meta processed her data without a lawful basis, failed to meet transparency requirements, unlawfully transferred her data outside Nigeria and failed to conduct an adequate Data Protection Impact Assessment.

She asked the court to order Meta to stop the alleged unlawful processing of her data and bring its operations in Nigeria into compliance with the Data Protection Act.

She also sought $10 million in general damages and $15 million in exemplary damages, as well as interest on the judgment debt.

Meta’s defence

Meta, through its lawyer, Paul Mgbeoma, disputed the allegations.

The company argued that Ms Chukwuemeka had not provided evidence showing that her individual data was processed unlawfully or transferred outside Nigeria in breach of the law.

Meta also said users agree to its terms when they register for Facebook and Instagram.

According to the company, its services are funded partly through personalised advertising and its terms explain how users’ data may be processed to provide personalised experiences and advertisements.

It argued that consent was not the only lawful basis for processing personal data under the Nigeria Data Protection Act.

Meta challenges jurisdiction

Before considering the substantive claim, the court dealt with Meta’s preliminary objection.

The company argued that it had not been properly served with the originating process and that the process was not endorsed for service outside Imo State.

It also argued that the suit could not properly be brought under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules because most of the claims concerned alleged breaches of the Data Protection Act rather than a direct violation of a fundamental right.

Meta further challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Imo State High Court and argued that provisions in its terms of service required certain disputes to be resolved in California.

The court rejected the objections.

On service, Mr Alinnor held that Sections 97, 98 and 99 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act did not apply to fundamental rights proceedings.

The judge relied on a 2024 Court of Appeal decision, IGP v Omagbeosa, which held that the provisions do not apply to proceedings brought under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules.

The court also upheld the substituted service of the processes on Meta at an address on Glover Road, Ikoyi, Lagos.

Court upholds Imo jurisdiction

Mr Alinnor also rejected Meta’s argument that the Imo State High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction.

The judge said the dispute involved activities carried out through the internet and could be accessed across jurisdictions.

Relying on the 2021 decision in Daily Times v Arum, the court held that jurisdiction could arise in a state where online material was accessed.

Mr Alinnor said the activities complained of by Ms Chukwuemeka were accessed in Imo State.

Meta had argued that its terms of service required disputes involving commercial use of Facebook and Instagram to be resolved under United States law and in California.

But Mr Alinnor explained that the relevant provisions did not contain the restriction attributed to them by Meta.

The judge stated that the provision referred to users as “consumers” and did not distinguish between private and commercial use.

The court consequently dismissed Meta’s preliminary objection.

Court considers privacy claim

Having resolved the jurisdictional issues, the court considered whether Ms Chukwuemeka had established a violation of her constitutional right to privacy.

Mr Alinnor noted that a fundamental rights action must principally concern the enforcement of a fundamental right and cannot be based merely on an incidental constitutional issue.

The judge 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 four issues and 12 prayers concerned the Nigeria Data Protection Act, the judge proceeded to consider whether the alleged processing of her personal data could amount to a breach of her constitutional right to privacy.

Mr Alinnor held that Section 37 of the Constitution protects personal information and that personal data can fall within the protection of the right to privacy.

The judge relied on Incorporated Trustees of Digital Rights Lawyers Initiative v NIMC, which recognised personal data as part of the information protected by the constitutional right to privacy.

The court then examined the evidence supporting Ms Chukwuemeka’s allegations.

Mr Alinnor identified the NDPC Final Order, tendered as Exhibit C2, as the main evidence relied upon by the applicant.

READ ALSO: WhatsApp introduces incognito chat feature to address Meta AI chat privacy concerns

But the judge noted that the order had been set aside following the settlement between Meta and the NDPC before the Federal High Court in Abuja.

The judge therefore held that Ms Chukwuemeka could no longer rely on the order to establish that Meta had violated her constitutional rights.

Mr Alinnor then considered whether the applicant had other evidence to support her allegations.

The court found that she had not provided enough.

The judge held that Ms Chukwuemeka failed to show specifically how Meta had infringed her privacy rights or unlawfully processed her personal data.

The court consequently found no sufficient basis for granting the declarations, injunctions and damages sought.