Class Actions as a Tool for Digital Justice: Lessons from Nigeria’s Case Against Meta
When the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission upheld the $220 million penalty against Meta Platforms in 2025, the decision sent ripples across the global tech industry. But beyond the headlines about regulatory muscle-flexing and billion-dollar fines lies a more profound story about collective action, digital rights, and what effective enforcement looks like in practice.
The Commission’s decision came after months of investigation, examining how WhatsApp’s privacy policy update affected Nigerian users. What investigators discovered was a pattern many of us suspected, but few could prove: Nigerian users were being treated differently. Their data was shared with Facebook and other third parties without proper consent. The mechanisms for controlling personal information that existed for European users were simply absent for Africans. The fundamental right to say “no” was replaced with a take-it-or-leave-it proposition.
While this wasn’t technically filed as a class action lawsuit, the regulatory approach functioned with remarkably similar logic. The Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission and the Nigeria Data Protection Commission aggregated the grievances of millions into a single proceeding. They built an evidentiary record, established patterns of harm, and secured remedies benefiting an entire user population. This matters because it demonstrates that when traditional litigation pathways are underdeveloped or inaccessible, regulatory enforcement can serve as a viable alternative for achieving collective justice.
The practical implications go beyond Meta’s balance sheet. The tribunal ordered structural remedies that actually change how the company operates: reverting to the 2016 data-sharing policy, implementing proper consent mechanisms, stopping unauthorized cross-platform data transfers, and submitting compliance reports by specific deadlines. These aren’t abstract principles or aspirational guidelines. They’re concrete requirements with enforcement teeth attached.
Consider what this means for how we think about digital justice in Nigeria and across Africa. For years, we’ve heard that our regulatory frameworks were too weak, our enforcement capacity too limited, our courts too slow to meaningfully check the power of global tech giants. The Meta case proves otherwise. When regulatory agencies coordinate effectively, build technical expertise, and act decisively, they can secure meaningful accountability even against the world’s largest companies.
The joint investigation model employed here deserves particular attention. Data protection violations often involve competition issues, and vice versa. Meta’s conduct simultaneously infringed on privacy rights and abused market dominance. Addressing this required investigators who understood both frameworks. The collaboration between FCCPC and NDPC created a more comprehensive enforcement action than either agency could have pursued independently. This approach should become standard practice, not the exception.
What makes this case especially instructive for the future of digital rights enforcement is how it navigates the tension between global platforms and local sovereignty. Meta argued throughout the proceedings that implementing Nigeria-specific consent mechanisms was technically impossible, that the directives were vague, that the penalties were excessive compared to government budgets. The tribunal rejected these arguments systematically, making clear that technical difficulty doesn’t excuse legal violations and that Nigerian law applies to anyone doing business with Nigerian consumers.
There’s also something worth noting about the role of foreign precedent in this case. Meta’s legal team, led by Professor Gbolahan Elias, urged the tribunal to disregard foreign standards. But the tribunal held that while foreign law isn’t binding on Nigerian courts, it remains persuasive in contexts involving universal principles like data protection and consumer rights. This balanced approach, recognizing both Nigeria’s legal sovereignty and the value of comparative insights, offers a template for how emerging markets can develop their jurisprudence without either blindly copying Western models or reinventing every wheel.
Looking forward, Nigeria’s experience raises critical questions for how we structure digital justice mechanisms across Africa. Should we formalize hybrid enforcement models that combine regulatory and judicial processes? How do we ensure that fines translate into actual compensation for affected users rather than simply enriching government pockets? What mechanisms would allow individual Nigerians to claim damages from the harm they suffered? These questions matter because regulatory penalties, however large, aren’t the same as restorative justice.
The Meta case also exposes gaps in our legal infrastructure. Class action procedures in Nigeria remain procedurally complex and largely untested in digital contexts. Most users lack the resources or legal sophistication to challenge tech companies individually. Even when regulatory agencies succeed in securing findings of violations, translating those findings into direct relief for affected individuals requires additional mechanisms we haven’t fully developed yet.
What we need moving forward is a more integrated approach to digital rights enforcement. Regulatory agencies should be empowered not just to impose penalties on violators but to seek compensation on behalf of affected users. Courts should develop streamlined procedures for certifying class actions in data protection cases. Civil society organizations need resources to bring representative actions on behalf of digital rights claimants. And regional cooperation frameworks should enable coordinated investigations across African jurisdictions, creating continent-scale pressure for compliance.
There are legitimate concerns we must address as this enforcement model matures. Regulatory overreach is real. The same powers that hold Meta accountable could potentially be weaponized against dissent or used to control digital platforms in ways that undermine free expression. We need strong procedural safeguards, transparency requirements, and appeal mechanisms to prevent abuse. The goal isn’t to replace one form of power asymmetry with another but to create genuine accountability that protects users without becoming a tool of oppression.
The tribunal’s decision also raises uncomfortable questions about remedy proportionality. Yes, $220 million is substantial. But would Meta change its practices for penalties it can absorb as a cost of doing business? The more effective deterrent might actually be the structural remedies: the requirement to implement consent mechanisms, the reversion to older policies, the ongoing compliance reporting. These operational changes affect how Meta does business daily, not just once when it pays a fine.
For practitioners working at the intersection of technology law and consumer protection, Nigeria’s approach offers valuable lessons. Document everything. Build comprehensive evidentiary records that establish patterns, not just isolated incidents. Coordinate across agencies with complementary mandates. Don’t be intimidated by arguments about technical impossibility or foreign legal standards. And remember that the goal isn’t punishment for its own sake but creating systemic change that prevents future violations.
What’s clear is that collective action mechanisms, whether through formal class actions or innovative regulatory enforcement, are essential tools for achieving digital justice. They allow us to aggregate harms that are individually small but collectively massive. They create leverage against entities with vastly superior resources. And they establish that African users’ rights matter just as much as anyone else’s.
The Commission’s message to Meta and every other tech giant operating in Nigeria is straightforward: Nigerian law applies here. Nigerian users deserve respect. And Nigerian regulators have both the authority and the determination to enforce those principles. That’s not just a regulatory victory. It’s a fundamental statement about digital sovereignty and human dignity in an increasingly connected world.
