Can Meta’s threat whittle down FCCPC’s legal powers?

Meta is currently in trouble in Nigeria like it is in some other countries of the world as it has been fined a total sum of $290 million; a $220 million fine along with $70 million penalties from other agencies for regulatory breaches, prompting the social media giant to threaten pulling Facebook and Instagram from the country. And while it is enjoying local support following its threat, many have asked whether its threat downplay, the power of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) and the effect on Nigerians and Meta itself. ADEOLA OJO reports.

IN 2024, Meta, an American multinational technology company and the parent company of some popular social media platforms; Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp and Threads, was slammed with a fine of $220 million by the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) following the findings of a joint investigation carried out by the FCCPC and the Nigeria Data Protection Commission (NDPC). The investigation, which was on for 38 months after commencing in 2020, looked into the conduct, privacy practices and consumer data policies of Meta platforms, especially WhatsApp, though Meta updated its privacy policy in May 2021 while the investigation was still on.

In addition, FCCPC raised concerns about the new Policy, stating that it was foisted on Nigerian users in a manner that did not conform to applicable standards of fairness as it also failed to comply with the Nigeria Data Protection Regulations (NDPR) and the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act.

The FCCPC’s investigative report highlighted Meta and WhatsApp offences to include abuse of dominant position contrary to Section 72, FCCPA, conspiracy to injure or restrain competition contrary to Section 108 (d), FCCPA, unfair dealings contrary to Section 124 of the FCCPA, unfair, unreasonable or unjust contract terms contrary to Section 127, FCCPA, failure to properly procure consent for the collection and use of people’s data, contrary to Regulation 2.3 of the NDPR and non-conformity of privacy policy with the provisions of Regulation 2.5 of the NDPR.

It also alleged that it received evidence showing that certain provisions of WhatsApp’s Privacy Policy in Nigeria were removed from the Privacy Policy used by WhatsApp users in Europe, noting disparities between the scope of data collected by Meta with respect to its users/consumers in Nigeria and in Europe.

The commission said Meta committed multiple and repeated infringements of Nigerian’s rules, including “denying Nigerians the right to control their data, transferring and sharing Nigerian user data without authorization, discriminating against Nigerian users compared to users in other jurisdictions, and abusing their dominant market position by forcing unfair privacy policies.”

The conflict centres on data privacy concerns, with Nigeria insisting Meta must follow local laws regardless of its global status as part of efforts to assert regulatory authority over powerful global tech companies operating within its borders. And it is said that this marks an important precedent for how African nations manage relationships with multinational tech companies.

The FCCPC notified Meta of the allegations against them and issued them an ‘Order to Show Cause (OSC)’ as they are required to under section 17 of the FCCPA; this required Meta to show cause why the Commission should not take administrative actions against them. Meta responded to the Commission’s OSC, stating that the Commission’s assertions and findings were baseless and lacked evidence to support them. In particular, Meta disagreed with the Commission’s market definition, and their assertion that WhatsApp dominated the market. They also refuted the allegation that their conduct resulted in any harm to consumers.

At the end of the investigation, the FCCPC imposed a fine of $220 million on Meta, concluding that the company engaged in discriminatory and exploitative practices against Nigerian consumers.

Dissatisfied with the order, Meta and WhatsApp exercised their right to appeal the decision of the Commission by appealing to the Competition and Consumer Protection Tribunal in Abuja, a quasi-judicial arm of the FCCPC that is empowered to adjudicate over conducts prohibited under the FCCA, challenging the legal basis of the decision and the Commission’s findings. The appeal commenced in January and on April 25, the Tribunal delivered judgment in favour of FCCPC, awarding the sum of $220 million against Meta and WhatsApp, and an additional cost of $35,000 in favour of the FCCPC for the cost of its investigation.

The good news for Meta is that they can still appeal the decision of the Tribunal at the Court of Appeal, in so far as they file the appeal within 30 days after the delivery of the Tribunal’s judgment. Some express the belief that if they make an argument that’s good enough to sway the decision of the Court of Appeal in their favour, then they just might escape the fines altogether.

Meta’s unsuccessful appeal further validates the FCCPC’s procedures and its interpretation of data rights under Nigerian law. The showdown is the latest development in a yearlong regulatory battle between the social media behemoth and Africa’s most populous nation. And Meta threatened to quit Nigeria but the FCCPC said on May 3 that quitting Nigeria won’t absolve Meta of its liability, it characterised Meta’s withdrawal threat as “a calculated move aimed at inducing negative public reaction” to pressure regulators into reconsidering their decision.

With millions of Nigerian users across Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp at stake, the standoff raises important questions about corporate accountability and digital sovereignty in emerging markets.

The Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act was enacted by the National Assembly in December 2018, and subsequently signed into law by President Muhammadu Buhari in January 2019. The introduction of a codified set of competition rules into Nigeria’s regulatory oversight framework was described as a long anticipated change to ensure that market distortions across all sectors are minimised and rules of fair play are respected in the marketplace.

The Act repealed the Consumer Protection Council Act, dissolving the Consumer Protection Council and established the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (“FCCPC”) in its stead. Unlike the defunct CPC, the FCCPC’s oversight extends beyond just consumer protection issues, and covers all entities in Nigeria — whether they are engaged in commercial activities as bodies corporate, or as government agencies and bodies.

Powers of the FCCPC to impose fines

The overarching role that FCCPC plays as a regulatory body in Nigeria is the prevention of anti-competition and anti-consumer protection practices that adversely affect the economic interest of consumers. The FCCPC Act empowers the Commission under section 18 (1) (h) to make regulations relating to the charging and collection of fees, levies, fines and the imposition of administrative penalties.

This is the premise for which FCCPC enacted the FCCPC Administrative Penalties Regulations 2020, which regulates the administration and imposition of administrative penalties by the Commission. It also outlines the method for the calculation and determination of penalties. Hence, the FCCPC cannot randomly impose penalties without due recourse to the Regulations.

Indeed, the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) has the power to impose fines based on the provisions of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act (FCCPA) and the FCCPC Administrative Penalties Regulations 2020. The FCCPC can impose administrative penalties for violations of the FCCPA and this includes fines.

The FCCPA grants the FCCPC the authority to investigate and take action against violations of competition and consumer protection laws and impose administrative penalties, including monetary fines, for certain violations.

Meta is not the only organisation that has had issues with the commission; FCCPC last year slammed British American Tobacco (BAT) with a fine of $110 million.

Beyond Nigeria

Also, FCCPC or Nigeria is not the first to issue fines against Meta on issues regarding breach of data privacy or competition laws. Two days before the Competition and Consumer Protection Tribunal upheld the order for the fine against Meta, it was slammed with a fine of 200 million euros (nearly $230m) for its controversial “pay or consent” model, which forces users in the EU to either pay for ad-free access to Facebook and Instagram, or consent to targeted advertising. The penalties follow a year-long investigation by the European Commission.

In November 2024, Meta was also fined the sum of INR2.1 billion ($24.9 million) by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) for abusing its dominant position in messaging and advertising by requiring users to share data for use across its platforms. An investigation revealed that WhatsApp made data sharing with Meta Platforms mandatory when it updated its terms of service and privacy policy in 2021, removing an earlier option to opt out. Part of the penalty was that the agency ordered WhatsApp to stop sharing users’ data with other Meta Platforms for five years.

That same month, South Korea imposed a fine to the tune of 21.62 billion won ($15.67 million) on Meta, for collecting sensitive user data of about 980,000 South Korean Facebook users on issues such as their religion, political views and sexuality without their consent and giving it to advertisers without a legal basis.

Also, Meta agreed to pay the sum of $1.5 billion in settlement of a lawsuit brought by the government of Texas against the company, for the alleged illegal use of facial-recognition technology to collect biometric data of millions of Texans without their consent. It has also been penalized in India, France, and Australia.

In Africa, Nigeria and South Africa remain the only African countries to impose serious sanctions on Meta. Others, such as Egypt, Kenya, Uganda, and Zambia, are watching and weighing their next steps. If Nigeria succeeds in transforming this moment from confrontation to systemic reform, it will not only win a case, it will set a bold precedent for the Global South.

Significance

While the amount imposed on Meta as fine in Nigeria may not be significant for the company that made total revenue of $164 billion in 2024, it is said that Meta isn’t making enough money in the country to justify paying such an amount.

“I don’t think they will follow up on the threat, but the possibility exists if Nigeria chooses to be obstinate,” Cheta Nwaneze, a partner at SBM Intelligence had said, adding that Nigeria represents only a miniscule percentage of its global revenue and Meta can afford to forgo if the stress of remaining in the country outweighs the benefits.

However, experts say the potential withdrawal of Meta’s platforms may have significant implications for Nigeria’s digital ecosystem as Meta has a massive presence in the country, with Facebook alone reaching about 51.2 million users as of May 2024, more than a fifth of the population.

Instagram had 12.6 million Nigerian users as of November 2023, while WhatsApp had about 51 million users, making Nigeria the 10th largest market globally for the messaging app.

However, some think it is not prudent for Meta to exit Nigeria, which is one of its largest markets in Africa. They think rather than issuing threats, Meta should present its case to the Court of Appeal and apply for a stay of execution pending the submission of the appeal so that it can prevent the regulator from enforcing its order before the appeal verdict and give Meta space to explore other avenues, like arriving at a settlement.

Speaking on the issue, a legal practitioner and AI governance, public policy expert, Timi Olagunju said against the contention of the FCCPC argues that, in the EU, users are presented with clear opt-in and opt-out tools, often delivered through in-app prompts. They are informed before their data is used to train AI systems or sold to advertisers.

In Nigeria? No notice. No choice. No opt-out, legally, the FCCPC acted within its powers. Section 51(2) of the FCCPA empowers the commission to impose reasoned fines, not exceeding 10 percent of a company’s Nigerian turnover, for unfair or exploitative practices.

He added that “in this case, the agency also cited Sections 70 through 76 to address Meta’s abuse of market dominance, particularly through WhatsApp and Facebook. But enforcement must walk in step with clarity, proportionality, and diplomacy. If reports are accurate, Meta’s estimated annual revenue in Nigeria is between $200 and $300 million. A $220 million fine, representing more than 70 percent, and potentially up to 110 percent of that revenue, far exceeds the 10% legal cap and raises serious questions about proportionality. It is legally and economically difficult to defend. By comparison, the European Union’s €1.2 billion fine in 2023 for illegal data transfers represented just 3.2 percent of Meta’s EU revenue. A reasonable fine, aligned with Nigerian law and global benchmarks, would fall between $2 million and $20 million, ensuring enforcement is firm, fair, and legally defensible.

“To the FCCPC and NDPC, this is not just about setting a precedent. It is about defining a principle that Nigerian users deserve equal treatment, transparent terms, and dignified digital rights. Enforcement should not only punish but persuade, through public education, tiered compliance models, and conditional settlement offers that reward reform. The FCCPC may consider restructuring the fine to a base amount of $20 million, in line with the 10% legal cap or even less, and offer conditional waivers of up to $10 million or even $15 million, if Meta introduces localized consent mechanisms, publishes Nigeria-specific transparency reports, and aligns its data protections with those offered in the EU,” he added.

While Meta’s social platform users remain divided, the key issue is whether the commission can maintain its position through to the end as the outcome will set an important precedent for how global tech companies interact with regulatory authorities across Africa and other emerging markets.