In a development poised to reshape Nigeria’s digital policy landscape, the Nigeria Data Protection Commission (NDPC) and Meta Platforms, Inc. have reached an out-of-court settlement over a contentious US$32.8 million fine imposed earlier this year. The agreement, announced in the Federal High Court in Abuja, ends months of litigation and signals both a compromise and a test of Nigeria’s regulatory resolve.
The Settlement Unveiled: Key Facts and Timeline
On October 3, 2025, parties before Justice James Omotosho disclosed that the NDPC and Meta had agreed to settle the dispute rather than proceed to a full judicial determination.
To recap the backstory: on February 18, 2025, the NDPC issued a remedial fine of US$32.8 million and eight corrective orders to Meta for alleged violations of Nigeria’s Data Protection Act. The commission accused Meta of illicitly leveraging user data for behavioral advertising, transferring data out of Nigeria without proper consent, failing to file audit reports, and processing data even of non-users without compliance.
Meta responded with litigation. In a motion filed on February 26 and thereafter, the company sought to challenge the NDPC’s orders, contending violations of due process and constitutional rights. Among those filings was a request to quash enforcement orders and a motion to amend court processes.
As proceedings progressed through preliminary objections and counterarguments—especially in relation to jurisdiction and competence—the court ultimately deferred a full ruling in favor of adopting the settlement terms.
Under the negotiated arrangement, Meta is expected to pay the fine and comply with corrective orders, though exact settlement terms (e.g., payment schedule, compliance timeline) were not publicly disclosed at the time of the announcement.
The judge had previously reserved judgment on Meta’s preliminary objections and motions to amend, scheduling that decision for October 4—only for the settlement to take center stage.
Regulatory Context: Why This Matters
From NDPC Sanction to Broader Fines
This $32.8 million dispute was not Meta’s only regulatory problem in Nigeria. In July 2024, Nigeria’s Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) independently imposed a US$220 million fine on Meta and WhatsApp, following a comprehensive 38-month investigation into privacy, consumer protection, and competition practices.
In April 2025, a tribunal upheld that FCCPC fine, affirming that Meta had violated national consumer and data protection laws by discriminating against Nigerian users and failing to secure informed consent for data practices.
Separately, the Advertising Regulatory Council of Nigeria (ARCON) reportedly also levied an N60 billion (~US$37.5 million) penalty against Meta in relation to advertising violations—pushing its total exposure in Nigeria close to US$290 million.
So the NDPC settlement occurs against a backdrop of mounting multi-agency scrutiny, and it arrives with the regulatory momentum firmly behind Nigeria’s drive for stronger digital oversight.
The Tug of War Between Sovereignty and Tech Giants
At the heart of the dispute lies Nigeria’s assertion of digital sovereignty—the principle that data generated within its borders should be regulated under its laws. Meta’s operations, like many global tech firms, have long moved data across borders and offered one-size-fits-all privacy policies. For regulators in Nigeria and elsewhere, that model clashes with modern compliance expectations.
The NDPC’s initial fines and corrective orders mirrored this philosophy: if Meta insists on doing business in Nigeria, then it must play by Nigeria’s rules when it comes to data governance, user consent, and local accountability.
Meta, for its part, repeatedly raised concerns about due process, jurisdictional reach, and the burden of retroactive compliance. The settlement suggests a recognition that combative litigation might be costlier—both reputationally and financially—than compromise.
Implications and What to Watch
Risks and Rewards of Settling
One immediate question: does this settlement weaken regulatory teeth? Critics argue that Meta, by settling, skirts a full judicial judgment and potentially deprives future cases of binding precedent. That concern carries weight—particularly when Nigeria is still building its jurisprudence in data law enforcement.
On the other hand, settlements can yield swifter implementation, clearer path to compliance, and reduced legal uncertainty. For NDPC, securing payment and enforcement may be more beneficial than a protracted win on paper.
Enforcement Realities and Compliance Signals
Watch closely whether NDPC publishes full details of the settlement—payment installments, deadlines, audit oversight, and penalties for breach. The credibility of Nigeria’s enforcement regime hinges on transparency and follow-through.
Meta’s compliance will also be telling: will it fully implement corrective orders, report metrics, localize data processing, and conform to stronger consent models? Or will it seek to lobby for softer enforcement or reinterpretation?
Broader Precedent and Regional Momentum
This settlement may be viewed by other African nations as a litmus test. If Meta is seen to fully comply, regulators elsewhere may gain confidence. If Meta negotiates lenient terms or delays execution, it may embolden tech firms to resist stricter regulation in jurisdictions with weaker enforcement.
Public Perception and Brand Risk
Meta’s brand and trust metrics are under pressure. Many Nigerians are acutely aware of debates around user privacy, “selling” personal data, and foreign tech dominance. A well-handled settlement might help rehabilitate local trust, but any perception of cutting corners will be politically sensitive.
For regulators, this is a reputational test too—by settling, NDPC and the government must maintain credibility that enforcement is firm, consistent, and not subject to backroom bargain.
0 Comments