A Federal High Court in Lagos has set aside the ₦60 billion fine the Advertising Regulatory Council of Nigeria (ARCON) slammed on Facebook Nigeria Operations Limited (FNOL) back in October 2024. Justice Yelim Bogoro delivered the ruling in suit FHC/L/CS/2205/2024, and predictably, most of the coverage has zeroed in on the size of the fine.
But that part of the story is old news. As far back as April 2025, another judge at the same court, Justice Akintayo Aluko, had already ruled in Digi Bay Limited (trading as Betway Nigeria) v. ARCON that the agency has no power to impose fines directly, since that’s a judicial function reserved for a court or the Advertising Offences Tribunal. ARCON seemed to take that ruling seriously in later cases, including Godec Power Nigeria Ltd. v. ARCON in November 2025 and Watercress Hotel International Limited v. ARCON in June 2026, sticking instead to regularising unapproved adverts and making tribunal referrals. So by the time Facebook Nigeria’s case came up, striking down the fine was almost a foregone conclusion.
That’s exactly why the fine isn’t the part of this judgment that should be making headlines.
The Real Issue: Who Is Meta in Nigeria?
The parts of the ruling that deserve real scrutiny are the court’s findings on whether Meta Platforms Inc. and Facebook Nigeria Ltd are separate legal entities, and whether Facebook Nigeria was acting as Meta’s agent in the country. On both questions, the court sided with Facebook Nigeria, ruling that ARCON hadn’t proven any corporate link beyond their separate legal status. In effect, Facebook can keep making money in Nigeria, but any accountability gets pushed off to Meta’s headquarters in the US, which insists Nigerian courts have no jurisdiction over it.
That finding is what should have made news, not the fine.
A Ruling That Doesn’t Match Obvious Facts
On the surface, this conclusion is hard to square with reality. Meta’s own terms of service have long listed Facebook, WhatsApp, and Instagram as its products. Facebook Nigeria Operations Limited’s name alone suggests it exists to run Meta’s business in Nigeria, with staff in Lagos and correspondence tied to Meta’s own systems. That a court could find no proven link between the two, despite all this, raises questions about how thoroughly the matter was examined.
This isn’t ARCON’s first attempt to hold a Meta-linked entity accountable in Nigeria either. Back in October 2022, ARCON sued Meta Platforms directly, along with its Nigerian agent AT3 Resources Limited, over unvetted adverts shown to Nigerian users. That case dragged on in Abuja for almost two years before ARCON’s lawyers dropped it in July 2024, clearing the way for the Facebook Nigeria case that eventually landed in Lagos.
Other Nigerian courts have handled similar disputes differently. In Falana v. Meta Platforms Inc., the Lagos High Court allowed proceedings over the unauthorised use of human rights lawyer Femi Falana’s name and image on Facebook to go forward, treating Meta as the right party to sue without demanding proof of its link to Facebook first. Separately, the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission fined the company $220 million over how it handled Nigerian users’ data, again treating Meta as answerable without requiring anyone to map out its corporate structure first.
Other Countries Haven’t Let Meta Off So Easily
Nigeria isn’t the only place where Meta has tried to hide behind corporate separateness, and other courts have pushed back. In Kenya, Meta long argued it couldn’t be sued over how Facebook content moderators were treated because it didn’t employ them directly. Kenya’s employment court disagreed, ruling Meta was effectively their employer since they did Meta’s work under Meta’s rules, and the Court of Appeal upheld that decision.
Australia saw an almost identical argument. Facebook Inc. claimed it wasn’t doing business in Australia because only its Irish subsidiary, Facebook Ireland, operated there. The Full Federal Court rejected that, ruling the data-sharing arrangement between the two entities was itself evidence Facebook Inc. was doing business in the country.
In the European Union, Meta’s structure of routing non-US business through Facebook Ireland Ltd didn’t stop Ireland’s Data Protection Commission from fining the Irish subsidiary €1.2 billion and ordering it to stop unlawful data transfers to its US parent.
Even in the US, a Vermont lawsuit over Instagram’s effects on teenagers saw Meta argue it had no specific ties to the state. Vermont’s courts disagreed, pointing to Instagram’s large teen user base there, and the US Supreme Court refused to hear Meta’s appeal in May 2026.
Why This Matters Beyond the Money
The real issue this judgment raises is whether anyone in Nigeria can actually be held accountable for what happens on these platforms. If a Nigerian court has ruled that a platform’s local entity has no legal relationship to the global company that owns and profits from it, that sets a precedent other multinationals could exploit too.
Facebook and Instagram aren’t neutral spaces. They’re where scams targeting Nigerian bank accounts thrive, where counterfeit goods and even contraband get advertised, and where harmful content reaches children. So the question this judgment leaves unanswered is simple: when Nigerians are defrauded or harmed through these platforms, who do they hold accountable in a Nigerian court? If Facebook Nigeria has no proven link to the platform, the honest answer right now is no one.
This ruling could open the door for more multinationals to use corporate separateness to dodge accountability in Nigeria, with ordinary Nigerians left to bear the cost. The judiciary owes the public a closer look at this case, beyond the legal technicalities, before that door swings any wider.
READ ALSO:
- “I’m Not Going Anywhere” — Defence Minister Musa Denies Resignation Rumours After Tinubu Meeting
- Drama Online as Wife Ties Husband’s Canada Move to Public Oath Against Infidelity
- US Set to Announce Civilian Nuclear Deal With Saudi Arabia Amid Houthi Tensions
- Shettima: Nigeria Can’t Build $1trn Economy on Weak Governance
- Falz: Why I’ve Never Openly Endorsed Any Politician or Party
