In a new analysis, ARTICLE 19 comments on the 18 July 2024 decision of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission of Nigeria (FCCPC) to impose on Meta a $220 million USD penalty fine as well as far-reaching remedies for alleged abuse of market power and privacy violations. This case is particularly noteworthy because the FCCPC explicitly recognised the link between protecting fundamental rights, including data protection, and safeguarding competition. This combination of factors is gradually becoming an issue of global focus, with similar decisions having been reached elsewhere – particularly in the EU – and increasing discussions at the international level.
The fine and other remedies were a result of a three-year investigation by FCCPC on WhatsApp’s data-sharing practices. The Commission found evidence of ‘multiple and repeated, as well as continuing infringements’ of the country’s data protection and competition laws – including appropriations of personal data without consent, discriminatory practices against Nigerian consumers compared with other jurisdictions, and abuse of Meta’s dominant market position by forcing exploitative privacy policies on consumers without giving them the option to withhold consent or self-determine how their data is used.
At the time of writing, Meta reacted to the judgement by threatening to withdraw certain services from Nigeria.
Commenting on the case, ARTICLE 19’s Regional Director for Senegal and West Africa, Alfred Bulakali said:
“The outsized market power of some Big Tech companies is an issue in Africa, where users, regulators and governments have little influence on platforms’ policies and their business conduct. This case sends a strong signal that the imbalance of power poses a threat to the fundamental rights of people in Nigeria, and that it must be addressed.
“This should be an opportunity for consultative dialogues involving Meta and other Big Tech companies, citizens and the government on how to put in place policies and practices that safeguard rights, including protection of data and freedom of expression. It is disappointing that, in response to the decision, Meta chose instead to threaten to leave Nigeria.
“It is time for Meta and other Big Tech companies to engage with relevant actors not just in Nigeria, but in other African countries to ensure well-functioning digital markets on the continent and to reinforce key fundamental rights in the digital era. It’s time for Meta and others to listen.”
ARTICLE 19’s analysis identifies key takeaways from the decision and the approach taken by Nigeria’s FCCPC:
- The investigation was holistically and organically conducted by the Nigerian authority. A preliminary investigation by the FCCPC began in May 2021 following a global announcement by WhatsApp of changes to its privacy policy. Subsequent remedies proposed by Meta were deemed inadequate by FCCPC to address the concerns raised in its investigative report. The decision taken by the Nigerian authority simultaneously enforces three different pieces of legislation: consumer protection, data protection and competition law. ARTICLE 19 has consistently emphasised the importance of viewing the actions of Big Tech as potential violations of various laws within the same jurisdiction.
- The FCCPC considered the violation of data protection laws to be an abuse of dominant position. With this acknowledgement, the FCCPC has aligned itself with a more progressive view of antitrust legislation that addresses the significant challenges posed by Big Tech.
- While the fine for a company as large as Meta could be seen merely as a ‘cost of doing business’, the behavioural obligations are especially significant.
ARTICLE 19 finds this case to be significant both in its own right, and for its indication of growing global recognition that the immense amount of influence and the concentration of power that a few technology companies have gained has severe consequences for freedom of expression – and that regulators are well-positioned to intervene.