Meta has appealed a Lagos High Court ruling that found its processing of Nigerian Facebook and Instagram users’ personal data for behavioural advertising unlawful.
The case could have important implications for Meta ad tracking in Nigeria, digital advertising, online privacy and how technology companies obtain consent for targeted advertising.
The appeal was filed on September 30, 2026, five days after Justice A.F. Pokanu delivered the judgment. The High Court ordered Meta to stop unlawful processing of the applicants’ personal data, take steps toward compliance with Nigeria’s data-protection law and pay damages equivalent to US$100,000, alongside ₦1 million in costs.
However, the ruling is not yet the final word on Meta’s advertising practices in Nigeria. Meta has now taken the dispute to the Court of Appeal.
What Is the Meta Ad Tracking Case About?
At the centre of the dispute is behavioural advertising.
Behavioural advertising uses information about a person’s online activity to help build a picture of their interests and behaviour. That information can then be used to deliver more targeted advertising.
The Nigerian applicants argued that Meta collected, processed and profiled their personal information for advertising without obtaining valid consent or establishing another lawful basis under Nigerian data-protection rules.
The case was brought by the Incorporated Trustees of Laws and Rights Awareness Initiative on behalf of Nigerian Facebook and Instagram users, alongside five individual applicants.
The applicants relied on Nigeria’s constitutional privacy protections as well as provisions of the Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023 (NDPA).
What Did the Lagos High Court Decide?
In its September 25 judgment, the Lagos High Court found that Meta’s processing of the applicants’ personal data for behavioural advertising violated their privacy rights.
The court also found problems with Meta’s reliance on general terms and privacy policies as evidence of consent.
According to the judgment, Meta did not demonstrate that the individual applicants had specifically accepted the relevant versions of its terms through evidence such as electronic acceptance records, timestamps, user identifiers or comparable digital audit trails.
The court therefore rejected the idea that simply accepting Facebook or Instagram’s general terms automatically established informed consent for advertising profiling.
The Court’s View on Behavioural Advertising
The court distinguished between data processing that may be necessary to operate a social-media service and processing carried out for advertising-related profiling.
It concluded that behavioural advertising, cross-platform tracking and related analytics were not indispensable to providing Facebook and Instagram’s core social-networking functions.
That distinction is significant because Meta had argued that its advertising-supported business model formed part of the contractual relationship with users.
The court did not accept that argument as sufficient to establish contractual necessity for the disputed advertising-related processing.
Why Consent Matters for Nigerian Internet Users
Consent has become an increasingly important issue in digital privacy.
When someone signs up for an online service, several different types of data processing may occur behind the scenes. These can include account management, security, analytics, personalisation and advertising.
The Lagos ruling raises an important question:
Does agreeing to a platform’s general terms also mean a user has specifically agreed to extensive profiling for targeted advertising?
The court’s answer in this case was that general acceptance of platform terms should not automatically be treated as informed consent to advertising profiling.
For everyday internet users, the issue goes beyond Facebook and Instagram. It concerns how clearly technology companies explain what happens to personal information after users click “Accept.”
What Meta Says About the Dispute
Meta’s position in the Lagos case was that Facebook and Instagram are free, personalised services supported by advertising.
The company argued that users accept its terms and privacy policies when registering and that personalised advertising is connected to the contractual arrangement through which the services are provided.
The Lagos High Court rejected that reasoning in relation to the disputed behavioural advertising practices.
Meta has now appealed, meaning the Court of Appeal will have an opportunity to consider the legal questions raised by the judgment.
What Did the Court Order Meta to Do?
The Lagos High Court ordered Meta to:
- Cease unlawful processing of the applicants’ personal data.
- Take remedial measures to bring its Nigerian data-processing operations into compliance with the NDPA.
- File an affidavit of compliance within eight weeks.
- Pay the applicants the naira equivalent of US$100,000 in general damages.
- Pay ₦1 million in costs.
The court did not grant the applicants’ separate claim for exemplary damages.
Because Meta has appealed, the practical and legal consequences of the judgment remain subject to the appellate process.
The Case Also Raises Questions About Data Stored Outside Nigeria
Another major issue was the international transfer of Nigerian users’ personal data.
Meta told the court that it does not have data centres in Nigeria and that information from Nigerian users is processed through international infrastructure.
The court rejected the argument that users themselves should be regarded as responsible for transferring their data abroad simply because they use the platform.
Instead, it treated Meta as the party responsible for the relevant processing and considered the cross-border transfer requirements under Sections 41–43 of the NDPA.
This could be particularly important for international technology companies operating in Nigeria because modern cloud platforms frequently process information across multiple countries.
What Does This Mean for Nigerian Businesses?
The case is relevant beyond Meta.
Businesses in Nigeria that collect customer information for advertising, analytics or personalisation should pay close attention to the principles involved.
Companies should consider whether they can clearly explain:
- What personal data they collect
- Why they collect it
- What legal basis they rely on
- Whether consent is actually required
- How users can withdraw consent
- Who receives the information
- Whether information is transferred outside Nigeria
- How long the information is retained
For businesses running digital advertising campaigns, this is particularly relevant because tracking technologies can involve significantly more data processing than simply displaying an advertisement.
What Should Internet Users Know?
For ordinary Facebook and Instagram users, the case does not mean that advertising will immediately disappear from the platforms.
It also does not mean that every form of data processing by Meta has been declared unlawful.
The Lagos judgment concerned the specific applicants and the processing practices considered by the court.
Since Meta has appealed, the Court of Appeal may further clarify how Nigerian privacy law applies to behavioural advertising and consent.
Users can nevertheless take practical steps to understand their digital privacy better:
- Review privacy and advertising settings on social-media accounts.
- Pay attention to what information an app requests.
- Avoid granting unnecessary permissions.
- Read privacy notices when introducing sensitive information.
- Review connected apps and services periodically.
- Understand that personalised advertising can involve data analysis beyond the content of a single post.
Meta’s Nigerian Privacy Dispute Has a Complicated Legal Background
The latest case comes against the backdrop of other privacy-related disputes involving Meta in Nigeria.
In 2025, Meta and Nigeria’s Data Protection Commission reached an out-of-court settlement concerning a separate regulatory dispute that had involved allegations about data privacy and behavioural advertising.
There have also been different outcomes in Nigerian courts.
For example, the High Court of Imo State dismissed a separate $25 million privacy claim against Meta in July 2026, finding that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to establish a privacy violation or unlawful processing of her personal data.
That means the Nigerian legal position is still developing, rather than being represented by a single court decision.
What Happens Next?
Meta’s September 30 appeal moves the dispute to Nigeria’s appellate courts.
The Court of Appeal will have to consider the legal arguments surrounding issues such as:
- Valid consent
- Contractual necessity
- Legitimate interests
- Behavioural advertising
- Transparency
- Cross-border data transfers
- Constitutional privacy rights
- The requirements of the Nigeria Data Protection Act
Until the appeal is determined, the September 25 Lagos judgment remains a first-instance decision.
For technology companies, advertisers and Nigerian internet users, the case will be worth watching because its eventual interpretation could influence how consent-based advertising and user-data processing are handled in Nigeria.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can Meta still show ads to Nigerians?
The Lagos ruling does not amount to a general ban on advertising on Facebook or Instagram in Nigeria. It concerns the processing and profiling practices challenged in the case. Meta has also appealed the judgment.
Did the Nigerian court ban Meta’s targeted advertising?
The court ordered Meta to stop the unlawful processing of the applicants’ personal data for behavioural advertising. It did not issue a blanket ban on all advertising on Meta’s platforms.
Why is Meta appealing the Nigerian ruling?
Meta is challenging the Lagos High Court’s judgment, including its treatment of the legal basis for behavioural advertising and consent. The appeal will allow a higher court to review the decision.
What is behavioural advertising?
Behavioural advertising involves analysing information about users’ online activity and characteristics to help personalise or target advertisements.
Does accepting Facebook’s terms automatically mean I consent to ad tracking?
The Lagos High Court held in this case that general acceptance of Facebook or Instagram terms should not automatically be treated as informed consent to advertising profiling. The decision is being appealed.
Does this ruling apply to every Nigerian Facebook and Instagram user?
The judgment arose from a specific lawsuit and does not by itself establish that every form of Meta data processing involving every Nigerian user is unlawful. The appeal could further clarify the scope of the decision.
Conclusion
Meta’s appeal of the Nigerian ad tracking ruling places digital privacy and behavioural advertising at the centre of an important legal dispute.
The Lagos High Court’s decision focused heavily on whether users genuinely consented to advertising-related profiling and whether Meta could rely on general platform terms to justify that processing.
Meta now wants the Court of Appeal to review the decision.
For Nigerian businesses, advertisers and internet users, the broader lesson is clear: data collection, consent and transparency are becoming increasingly important parts of the technology landscape.
As the appeal progresses, the outcome could provide further guidance on how global technology platforms must handle personal data when operating in Nigeria.
Follow TechBrass for more updates on technology, digital privacy, AI, startups, cybersecurity and Nigeria’s rapidly evolving tech ecosystem.
