Lagos Court Orders Meta To Pay $25,000 To Femi Falana Over False Facebook Health Claim
A Lagos State High Court has ordered Meta Platforms Inc., the parent company of Facebook, to pay $25,000 in damages to Nigerian human rights lawyer Femi Falana (SAN) after a video on the platform falsely suggested he was suffering from a terminal illness. The ruling, delivered on Tuesday, January 13, 2026, rejected Meta’s claim that it was merely acting as a “hosting” or “intermediary” platform. The court noted that Meta monetizes content and that harm from misinformation is reasonably foreseeable, establishing a clear duty of care toward individuals affected by content on its platform. Olumide Babalola, convener of PrivCon Nigeria and co-author of the Casebook on Privacy and Data Protection Law in Nigeria, represented Falana and disclosed the verdict on LinkedIn. He said the case arose from a video published on Facebook in early 2025 that falsely portrayed Falana as suffering from a terminal illness. Babalola said, “The court affirmed that global technology companies hosting content for commercial gain owe a duty of care to those affected. The Court rejected the idea that platforms can avoid responsibility by claiming to be intermediaries, especially when harm from misinformation is foreseeable.” He added that being a public figure does not strip someone of their right to privacy. “The publication of false medical information was found to intrude into the claimant’s private life. This decision reinforces that health data is protected under Nigerian law, even for public figures.” Background On February 9, 2025, Falana filed a $5 million lawsuit against Meta in a Lagos High Court, claiming that a Facebook video titled “AfriCare Health Centre” violated his constitutional right to privacy under Section 37 of the 1999 Constitution and sections of the Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023. The video falsely suggested that Falana suffered from prostatitis. In his filings, he said Meta published his name, image, and fabricated health information without verification, affecting millions of viewers, and allegedly aimed to drive traffic and advertising revenue. He also requested that the video be removed immediately. Falana argued that the publication intruded on his private life, portrayed him in a false light, and caused emotional and psychological distress. The court’s decision not only awarded damages but also affirmed the principle that digital platforms are responsible for harmful content disseminated on their sites, even involving public figures.
