Table of Contents
Introduction
Social media has become part of everyday life. News, gossip, opinions, and sometimes outright falsehoods now travel faster online than they ever did offline. While these platforms make communication easier, they also raise an important question: who is responsible when harmful or false information is spread online?
This question was recently addressed by the High Court of Lagos State in a case involving Mr. Femi Falana, SAN, a well-known Nigerian lawyer and human rights activist, and Meta Platforms Inc., the company that owns Facebook.
The case arose from a video posted on Facebook that falsely claimed Falana was suffering from a serious illness. What followed was not just a personal dispute, but a legal decision that helps explain what rights Nigerians have online, and what responsibilities social media companies owe to people who are affected by content on their platforms.
This article explains, in simple terms, why the case was filed, what each side argued, what the court decided, and why the judgment matters to the average social media user.
Why Falana Went to Court
The case began after a video circulated on Facebook claiming that Femi Falana was seriously ill. Falana stated that the information in the video was false and that he had never given permission for such claims about his health to be published.
Rather than treating the issue as mere online gossip, Falana approached the Lagos State High Court on a constitutional basis. His main argument was that the video violated his right to privacy, which is protected under Section 37 of the 1999 Constitution.
Simply put, Falana argued that:
- A person’s health status is private information;
- Publishing false medical claims about someone without consent is an invasion of privacy; and
- The fact that he is a public figure does not mean anyone can spread false information about his health.
- He therefore asked the court to hold Meta responsible for allowing the video to be published and circulated on Facebook.
What Exactly was Falana Complaining About?
It is important to understand what this case was not about.
Falana did not sue Facebook because people criticised him or discussed his work. Public debate about public figures is expected in a democracy. His complaint focused on false medical information attributed to him.
His argument was this:
“If someone lies about my health and spreads that lie to millions of people online, my privacy has been violated, and the platform that allowed it to spread should not pretend it has no responsibility.”
This framing is important because Nigerian law treats medical information as highly personal.
Meta’s Defence: “We Are Just a Platform”
In response, Meta Platforms Inc. argued that it should not be held responsible for the video because it did not create it. Their defence was based on the idea that Facebook is only a platform, a place where users post content, and responsibility for harmful content should rest with the individual user who posted it, not the company.
This argument is commonly used by social media companies around the world.
Meta argued;
“We didn’t make the video. We only provided the space where someone else uploaded it.”
Meta therefore asked the court to dismiss the case on the basis that it should not be blamed for content created by third parties.
What the Lagos State High Court Decided
The Lagos State High Court did not accept Meta’s defence in full. The court held that Falana’s right to privacy had been violated, even though he is a public figure.
According to the court, being well-known does not mean that a person loses all privacy, especially when it comes to personal and medical information.
The court also held that Meta could not completely distance itself from responsibility by claiming to be a neutral platform. The judge recognised that Facebook is a profit-making platform, a platform that controls how content is shared, and one that has systems in place to review, remove, or limit harmful content.
Because of this, the court found that Meta owed a duty of care to people who may be harmed by content circulated on its platform. As a result, the court awarded US $25,000 in damages to Falana for the violation of his privacy.
What the Court did not Say
It is just as important to understand what the court did not decide. The court did not say that Facebook is responsible for every post made by users. It did not rule that social media companies must monitor everything in real time. It also did not outlaw free speech or online debate.
Instead, the decision focused on a narrow issue, where false and harmful private information is allowed to circulate, platforms cannot automatically escape responsibility.
Why this Case Matters to the General Public
This judgment is not just about Femi Falana. It affects every Nigerian who uses social media.
First, it confirms that your right to privacy still exists online. Just because something is posted on Facebook or WhatsApp does not make it lawful or acceptable.
Second, it sends a message that large technology companies operating in Nigeria are not above Nigerian law. If their platforms cause harm, Nigerian courts can hold them accountable.
Third, the case helps explain the limits of online freedom. Free speech does not include the right to spread false personal or medical information about others.
Public Figures Still Have Private Lives
One important part of the ruling is the court’s position on public figures. Many people believe that once someone is famous, everything about them becomes public property. The Lagos State High Court rejected this idea.
The court made it clear that:
- Public figures can be criticised for their public actions;
- But their private lives, especially health matters, remain protected;
- False claims about such matters are not justified simply because the person is well-known.
This is an important clarification in an age like this where rumours spread easily online.
What this Means for Social Media Companies
For social media companies, the decision is a warning. The court did not impose excessive damages. The amount awarded was modest when compared to the sums often claimed in such cases. This shows that the court was careful and balanced in its approach.
However, the judgment makes one thing clear. Platforms that profit from user activity must also take responsibility when harm is foreseeable and preventable.
A Growing Conversation about Digital Rights
This case fits into a wider discussion about digital rights in Nigeria. As more aspects of life move online, courts are increasingly being asked to protect citizens from digital harm.
The Falana case shows that Nigerian courts are willing to apply existing constitutional rights to new technologies, rather than waiting for entirely new laws to be passed.
Conclusion
The Lagos State High Court’s decision in Femi Falana v. Meta Platforms Inc. is a reminder that technology does not erase basic rights.
The judgment confirms that:
- Privacy still matters in the digital age;
- Social media platforms have responsibilities, not just benefits;
- And constitutional rights apply both offline and online.
For the average Nigerian, the message is simple, being online does not mean being unprotected and for social media companies, the message is equally clear, operating in Nigeria means respecting Nigerian law.
In a world where information spreads instantly, this case shows that the law is still trying carefully and thoughtfully to keep pace.
Written by Oladeji Ibukunoluwa
