User Rights Violation | NDPC Asks Court to Dismiss Meta’s Lawsuit Against $32.8 Million Fine

The Nigeria Data Protection Commission (NDPC) has asked the Federal High Court in Abuja to dismiss, in its entirety, a lawsuit filed by Meta Platforms Inc., the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, challenging a $32.8 million fine imposed for alleged violations of Nigerian users’ privacy rights.

The NDPC, in a preliminary objection filed through its legal representative Adeola Adedipe, SAN, argued that Meta’s suit is procedurally defective, legally incompetent, and an abuse of court process. The commission maintained that the tech giant failed to comply with the court’s procedural rules and that its reliefs lack jurisdictional foundation.

Background to the Dispute

On February 18, 2025, the NDPC imposed a $32.8 million remedial fee and issued eight corrective compliance orders against Meta for allegedly violating Nigerian users’ data privacy rights through behavioural advertising practices on Facebook and Instagram.

The sanctions followed a complaint submitted by the Personal Data Protection Awareness Initiative (PDPAI), which accused Meta of engaging in non-consensual behavioural advertising—a targeted ad practice that tracks users’ activities and preferences without their explicit permission.

The commission said its investigation uncovered serious breaches, including:

• Use of sensitive personal data of minors, including drug-related content and erotic imagery.

• Use of manipulated personal data for gambling ads featuring journalists and public figures.

• Exposure of graphic and explicit content, including videos involving nudity.

• Failure to file a data protection compliance audit for 2022.

• Unauthorized cross-border transfer of Nigerian users’ data.

According to the NDPC, these violations contravened the Nigeria Data Protection Act (NDPA) 2023, particularly in relation to principles of fairness, transparency, lawfulness, and the duty of care.

Meta’s Legal Challenge

In response, Meta filed a motion ex-parte on February 26, seeking leave to challenge the NDPC’s decision via judicial review. The court, presided over by Justice James Omotosho, granted leave on March 4 to initiate the proceedings but refused to stay enforcement of the NDPC’s orders.

Meta, in its originating summons dated March 19, is asking the court to declare the NDPC’s actions null and void. It argues that:

• It was denied fair hearing as guaranteed under Section 36 of the Nigerian Constitution.

• The NDPC lacked legal basis to initiate the investigation based on a third-party petition (not from a data subject).

• The commission’s “final orders” were issued without adequate notice or engagement.

Meta also seeks:

• An order of certiorari quashing the investigation and compliance orders.

• An injunction restraining the NDPC from enforcing any part of the sanctions or attempting to compel payment of the fine.

NDPC’s Objection to the Suit

In its preliminary objection, the NDPC contends that Meta failed to comply with Order 34 Rule 6(1) of the Federal High Court Civil Procedure Rules 2019, which governs judicial review procedures. The commission argued that:

• Meta’s originating summons contains reliefs not included in the earlier statement filed with the ex-parte application.

• The reliefs being sought are now fundamentally different, making the entire process legally flawed and academic.

The NDPC insists the court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the suit and urged that it be dismissed or struck out in limine.

Meta’s Attempt to Amend Process

Reacting to the preliminary objection, Meta’s counsel, Fred Onuofia, SAN, filed a motion on April 23 seeking to amend the statement originally filed with the ex-parte application. The amendment, he argued, was necessary to align the reliefs in the statement with those in the originating summons.

He emphasized that the amendment would not prejudice the NDPC and was intended to ensure a “full and fair hearing.”

However, Adedipe, SAN, objected strongly, arguing that:

• Reliefs already granted in the ex-parte application cannot be amended or substituted.

• Meta’s request was procedurally and legally untenable, as the Federal High Court rules do not permit amendment of granted reliefs under judicial review.

• The amendment seeks to substitute core issues, not merely clarify grounds, thus undermining the court’s earlier order.

Court Adjournment

After hearing arguments from both sides, Justice Omotosho adjourned the matter to October 3 for a consolidated ruling on:

1. The NDPC’s preliminary objection to the competence of the suit.

2. Meta’s motion to amend the reliefs in its statement.

The outcome of the case could have wide-ranging implications for digital rights enforcement, regulatory authority, and corporate accountability in Nigeria’s evolving data governance landscape.