The Competition and Consumer Protection Tribunal in Nigeria has ordered WhatsApp and its parent company, Meta Platforms Incorporated, to pay a total of $220 million in penalties, alongside a reimbursement of $35,000 to the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC). The tribunal gave the companies 60 days to comply with the order, which stems from accusations of data discrimination in Nigeria.
The panel, led by Thomas Okosun, upheld the FCCPC’s findings and dismissed the appeal lodged by WhatsApp and Meta challenging the initial decision. The companies had contested the penalty, claiming that the process was flawed and the directives were unclear, among other complaints.
The legal teams from both sides had presented their final arguments before the tribunal on January 28, 2025. Professor Gbolahan Elias (SAN) represented WhatsApp and Meta, while Babatunde Irukera (SAN), a former Executive Vice Chairman of the FCCPC, argued on behalf of the Commission.
Previously, Nairametrics had reported that WhatsApp and Meta filed a formal appeal seeking to overturn the FCCPC’s $220 million sanction. They cited 22 reasons, including claims that the directives were ambiguous, difficult to execute within the given time, and lacked legal foundation under Nigerian law.
The FCCPC’s fine followed a detailed investigation into Meta’s alleged breaches of consumer and data protection laws in Nigeria. According to the Commission, Meta was involved in invasive and exploitative data practices that harmed Nigerian consumers.
During their appeal, the companies claimed they were denied a fair hearing, arguing that the FCCPC imposed the hefty penalty without fully explaining the calculation method or providing them a chance to challenge it.
They also stated that the Commission’s order to create a consent mechanism for each data point gathered from Nigerian users was “technically impossible and extremely expensive.”
However, the FCCPC countered these claims, saying the $220 million was not merely a punishment but a remedy for the discriminatory practices observed. The Commission emphasized that its investigation revealed Meta’s misuse of personal data, infringing on constitutionally protected rights.
Meta’s counsel, Elias, argued that the tribunal should not rely on foreign legal standards, suggesting that no abuse of dominance existed because users still had other options like TikTok and Google Meet.
In response, Irukera asserted that while foreign laws might not be binding, they serve as persuasive authorities in contexts with similar data protection issues. He urged the tribunal to uphold the FCCPC’s orders and dismiss the companies’ appeal.
The FCCPC also requested permission to present its full case records to the tribunal to support a fair and thorough decision-making process.
In its verdict, the tribunal agreed that referencing foreign rulings was legally appropriate. It partially admitted the FCCPC’s submitted materials as supplementary evidence, including an internal memo dated May 7, 2024, and an email from the Udo Udoma Law Firm.
The tribunal confirmed the validity of the FCCPC’s final and supplementary orders under the FCCPC Act and the Evidence Act. It also concluded that WhatsApp and Meta failed to provide credible counter-evidence to refute the Commission’s findings.
Addressing the fair hearing claim, Okosun stated, “The appellants were given ample opportunity to be heard.” He concluded that the FCCPC’s actions did not breach the companies’ rights to a fair process.
The tribunal affirmed that the FCCPC had operated within its legal authority, particularly in matters concerning data privacy and market regulation.
It found that Meta and WhatsApp were in breach of Nigeria’s data protection laws by transferring users’ data to third parties without proper consent. Furthermore, the tribunal ruled that the companies’ privacy policies were inconsistent with Nigerian legal standards.
“The tribunal finds no error in the overall orders of the FCCPC,” it stated, confirming that the administrative sanctions were imposed lawfully.
The tribunal concluded that the appeal filed by Meta and WhatsApp failed and therefore stood dismissed.
Following the ruling, the tribunal issued several binding directives:
Meta must immediately restore Nigerian users’ rights to control how their data is shared.
A compliance letter confirming this must be submitted by July 1, 2025.
The company must update its applications to let Nigerians manage data-sharing preferences on each data point.
Within 10 days, Meta must submit its updated data policy to both the FCCPC and the Nigeria Data Protection Commission (NDPC), and the new policy must be published.
Meta must cease sharing Nigerian user data with Facebook and third parties.
The data-sharing policy must revert to the 2016 version.
Meta is also prohibited from linking WhatsApp data to Facebook or any third-party platforms unless it obtains users’ explicit consent and proves compliance.
The company must reimburse the FCCPC $35,000 for investigation costs.
Finally, Meta is ordered to pay the $220 million fine by April 30, 2025.
After the ruling, WhatsApp maintained its position in a public response, stating: “In 2021, we globally informed users about how talking to businesses would work. While there was initial confusion, it has proven quite popular.”
Cases like this are not uncommon. In the European Union, Meta was previously fined €1.2 billion for breaching data privacy regulations under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Big Tech companies like Meta, Amazon, and Google have faced mounting regulatory pressure in recent years over data privacy violations.
The FCCPC’s ruling against Meta is one of the most significant penalties for data-related violations in Nigeria and underscores growing regulatory enforcement in the digital space.
Although WhatsApp and Meta argued that the FCCPC’s demands lacked legal standing in Nigeria, the tribunal sided with the Commission on all major points. It maintained that the FCCPC’s penalties and orders were consistent with the law and aimed at protecting the rights and privacy of Nigerian users.
The legality of the FCCPC’s enforcement actions had become the central issue in the dispute, but with the tribunal’s ruling, the companies must now comply with the orders or risk further legal consequences.
About The Author
