Court Dismisses $25m Privacy Claim Against Meta, Says Case Was “Built on Nothing”

 

The High Court of Imo State has dismissed a fundamental rights action in which Chika B. Chukwuemeka sought US$25 million in damages against Meta Platforms Inc. over alleged violations of her privacy and data protection rights.

Delivering judgment on 21 July 2026, Justice L. C. Alinnor of the Mbaitoli/Ikeduru Judicial Division held that the Applicant failed to establish that Meta had infringed her constitutional right to privacy or otherwise unlawfully processed her personal data.

Chukwuemeka had alleged that Meta collected, processed, profiled and used her personal data for behavioural advertising without her consent, in breach of Section 37 of the Constitution and provisions of the Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023.

She sought, among other reliefs, declarations that Meta’s alleged processing of her data was unlawful, orders restraining further processing and compelling Meta to bring its data-processing operations in Nigeria into compliance with the Act, as well as an order requiring the company to file an affidavit of compliance.

The Applicant also claimed substantial monetary reliefs, including the Naira equivalent of US$10 million as general damages and US$15 million as exemplary damages, together with post-judgment interest at the prevailing Central Bank of Nigeria rate until full liquidation of the judgment debt.

The Court, however, found that a substantial part of the Applicant’s case was built around Final Orders previously issued against Meta by the Nigeria Data Protection Commission.

Those Final Orders subsequently became the subject of proceedings before the Federal High Court in Abuja in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/355/2025, Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Nigeria Data Protection Commission.

The proceedings ended in a consent judgment under which the Final Orders were set aside.

Upholding the submissions made on behalf of Meta by its counsel, Paul Mgbeoma, the Imo State High Court held that once the NDPC’s Final Orders had been set aside, they became otiose and could no longer sustain the Applicant’s case.

The Court further held that, independently of the NDPC’s Orders, the Applicant failed to place sufficient evidence before it showing how Meta had specifically infringed her privacy rights.

According to the Court, the remaining allegations amounted essentially to bare assertions and did not provide a sufficiently detailed factual basis upon which judgment could be entered against Meta.

The Court ultimately concluded that, with the collapse of the regulatory foundation on which the claim had substantially rested, the Applicant’s case was “built on nothing”.

The suit was accordingly dismissed in its entirety for want of merit.