Story Highlights
- WhatsApp and Meta Platforms Incorporated argue that the FCCPC’s $220 million penalty should be overturned, citing 22 reasons including vague directives, unjustifiable data-sharing orders, and procedural errors.
- They claim the FCCPC’s demands are vague, technically impossible to implement within the given timeframe, and not supported by Nigerian law.
- The fine follows an investigation into alleged violations of data protection and consumer rights by Meta, with similar large fines imposed on tech giants by European regulators.
WhatsApp and its parent company, Meta Platforms Incorporated, have cited 22 reasons why the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) order imposing a $220 million penalty should be set aside by the Competition and Consumer Protection Tribunal, among others.
This is detailed in their notice of appeal against the FCCPC, which was exclusively seen by Nairametrics.
Nairametrics previously reported that the FCCPC, an agency under the Federal Ministry of Industry, Trade and Investment (FMITI), had imposed a $220,000,000 penalty on Meta Platforms Incorporated over alleged discriminatory practices against Nigerian data and consumers.
Why FCCPC penalized Meta platforms, WhatsApp
In a statement signed by Dr. Adamu Abdullahi, Acting Chief Executive Officer of the FCCPC on July 26, 2024,the penalty followed a joint investigation by the Commission and the Nigeria Data Protection Commission (NDPC) into Meta Platforms’ conduct, privacy policies, and practices between May 2021 and December 2023, a period of 38 months.
According to the statement, in May 2021, the Commission had directed WhatsApp LLC and Meta Platforms, Inc. (formerly called Facebook Inc.) to defend themselves regarding its investigative report, which detailed how their conduct allegedly violated relevant data laws.
Meta was said to have provided some information in response to the requests and summons under the joint investigation.
However, the Commission disclosed that the investigation concluded that Meta Platforms had engaged in conduct constituting continuing infringements of Nigeria’s consumer protection and data laws over an extended period.
It expressed concerns about Meta’s allegedly abusive and invasive practices affecting data subjects and consumers in Nigeria.
These included unauthorized use of personal data, discriminatory treatment compared to other regions with similar regulations, and the exploitation of market dominance to enforce privacy policies that collect personal information without giving consumers the option to consent or refuse.
“The Final Order of the Commission mandates steps and actions Meta Parties must take to comply with prevailing laws and cease the exploitation of Nigerian consumers and market abuse, as well as desist from future similar or other conduct/practices that do not meet nationally applicable standards and undermine the rights of consumers,” the FCCPC statement partly reads.
WhatsApp, Meta platforms grounds of appeal
In the social media giants’ 22 reasons listed in their notice of appeal seen by Nairametrics, their legal team argued that the FCCPC erred in all the findings, directions, and decisions contained in its orders.
They are leveraging their appeal to ask the tribunal to quash the FCCPC’s orders in their entirety.
Here are the reasons listed by WhatsApp and Meta Platforms:
Vague Rights of Nigerian Users
Meta Platforms insisted that the FCCPC’s directive to “immediately reinstate the rights of Nigerian users to self-determine and control the use, processing, sharing, or transfer of their data” is unreasonably vague, creating excessive uncertainty.
According to Meta, the obligation requested by the FCCPC does not consider the operational complexities inherent in the WhatsApp service, thereby imposing an impossible burden on the appellants.
Ambiguous privacy policy order
Meta insisted that Nigerian users are fully at liberty to reject its privacy policy by declining to accept WhatsApp’s Terms of Service and not using the WhatsApp service
.
Furthermore, it argued that the privacy policy order by FCCPC is ambiguous because WhatsApp had updated its privacy policy in a format that allows Nigerian users to fully express their legitimate rights prior to the initiation of the FCCPC’s investigation.
Unjustifiable order on data sharing between platforms
Meta insisted that it is unjustifiable for the FCCPC to order it to immediately halt sharing WhatsApp user information with other Facebook companies and third parties until users have voluntarily consented to each aspect of how their data will be used.
It submitted that forcing WhatsApp to rely on consent for its data sharing is discriminatory, contrary to the express provisions of the law, and disregards industry-standard practices.
Meta privacy policy not subject to FCCPC approval
WhatsApp and Meta insisted that Nigerian law does not require that the privacy policy of a data controller be approved in advance by either the Commission or the Nigeria Data Protection Commission (NDPC), nor does the law authorize any of the agencies to insist on such prior approval.
Meta can’t revert to its data sharing practices of 2016
Meta insisted that there is no legal basis for the Commission to direct the appellants to revert to the “data sharing practices adopted in 2016” (which allowed users to consent or withhold consent).
It maintained that the companies’ data practices do not violate Nigerian law and, therefore, do not warrant such a directive from the Commission.
Unclear blockage of WhatsApp data transfer to Facebook
The appellants submitted that the instruction to stop transferring data from WhatsApp to Facebook and other third parties without explicit consent from users is unclear, as one can make full use of the WhatsApp messaging service without signing up for a Facebook account or any other Meta product.
No need for written assurance to FCCPC
The appellants stated that they had not taken any steps detrimental to the interests of their Nigerian users and that there was no need for the FCCPC to mandate them to submit a “written assurance” assuring it would not infringe on consumers’ rights.
Erroneous proposed remedy package for consumers
The appellants argued that they have no remedy “package” to comply with.
Furthermore, they contended that the 15-day timeframe stipulated by the order for the execution of the “Proposed Remedy Package” for consumers is inadequate and does not provide an adequate period for implementation.
