Critical Analysis of Meta's Appeal Against the FCCPC Fine
In 2024, Meta Platforms Inc. and its subsidiary, WhatsApp LLC (collectively, "Meta Parties"), filed an appeal against
Introduction
In 2024, Meta Platforms Inc. and its subsidiary, WhatsApp LLC (collectively, "Meta Parties"), filed an appeal against the $220 million fine imposed by the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) for violations of Nigerian laws. The fine was based on the alleged breach of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act 2018 (FCCPA) and the Nigeria Data Protection Regulation 2019 (NDPR). Specifically, the FCCPC accused Meta of unfair practices, data privacy violations, and discriminatory treatment of Nigerian users compared to those in other jurisdictions. This article will examine Meta's appeal, including the legal grounds cited, the implications of the arguments, and the potential outcomes of the case.
Meta's Grounds for Appeal
Meta's appeal, as reflected in their Notice of Appeal, contains several arguments against the FCCPC’s decision. The legal grounds include:
1. Jurisdictional Overreach by the FCCPC
Meta argues that the FCCPC overstepped its jurisdiction by looking into data privacy matters, a domain reserved for the NDPC. The appeal points to the fact that the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act (FCCPA) 2018 governs competition and consumer protection issues, not data privacy. The NDPR and, more recently, the Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023 (NDPA), established the NDPC as the primary regulator of data privacy. It is important to note that Section 17(a) of the FCCPA grants the FCCPC authority to protect consumers and enforce fair competition [1]. However, Meta argues that the FCCPC’s involvement in the investigation and fines related to data privacy exceeds the scope of the FCCPA.
Meta's contention that data privacy falls within the purview of the NDPC is based on the NDPR, which is derived from the NDPA 2023. The NDPR is Nigeria's primary data protection legislation, akin to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the European Union. Meta relies on the principle of ultra vires, which means acting beyond legal authority, to argue that the FCCPC lacked the statutory power to impose fines for data privacy violations [2].
The FCCPC justified its actions by citing its broad mandate under the FCCPA to protect consumers and ensure fair practices. The Commission interpreted the NDPR’s provisions on data consent as part of consumer rights under the FCCPA. This interpretation is significant because it places data privacy within the broader category of consumer rights, suggesting that the FCCPC's actions could be seen as aligned with its role in protecting consumers from abusive practices.
Should the court accept Meta's ultra vires argument, this could curtail the FCCPC’s ability to enforce data privacy violations in future cases, reserving such authority solely for the NDPC. This would likely create a more defined regulatory landscape, but it may also limit the FCCPC’s ability to address complex digital consumer protection issues that overlap with data privacy concerns.
2. Improper Calculation of Fines
Meta challenges the fine’s calculation, alleging that it was arbitrary and lacked a clear legal basis. Meta emphasizes that the FCCPC failed to disclose how it determined the $220 million figure. According to Meta, the fine violates the principles of fairness and proportionality as required by both Nigerian law and international legal norms.
Meta refers to Section 72 of the FCCPA, which prohibits abuse of dominance but also sets out conditions for imposing fines. Under the FCCPC’s Administrative Penalties Regulations 2020, fines should be calculated as a percentage of turnover, typically 1% of the offending company’s turnover. Meta argues that the FCCPC did not explain whether the fine was based on global turnover or turnover specific to Nigeria, leading to a lack of transparency [3].
The FCCPC’s authority to impose fines is grounded in the FCCPA, which allows for monetary penalties where abuse of dominance is proven [4]. However, Meta claims that the fine was disproportionate to the alleged violations, particularly given that it exceeded Meta's Nigerian turnover. Meta’s appeal also criticizes the FCCPC for failing to consider mitigating factors, such as the company’s voluntary cooperation during the investigation and the technical complexity of data sharing arrangements between Meta and WhatsApp.
The FCCPC likely calculated the fine based on its reading of Section 72(1) of the FCCPA, which prohibits practices like tying and bundling services. The $220 million fine, although significant, may have been intended as a deterrent against future abuses by dominant digital platforms. The FCCPC's focus on consumer protection also likely influenced its decision to impose such a substantial penalty.If the court finds that the FCCPC's fine was improperly calculated, it could lead to a reduction or overturning of the finefines. Furthermore, the decision could force the FCCPC to adopt clearer guidelines for future penalties, ensuring greater transparency and proportionality in its enforcement actions.
3. Violation of Fair Hearing
Meta’s appeal asserts that it was not granted a fair hearing, in violation of Section 36 of the Nigerian Constitution, which guarantees the right to a fair trial. Meta claims that the FCCPC failed to consider its defense, including proposals submitted to address the FCCPC's concerns during the investigation. Section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 guarantees the right to a fair hearing. Meta contends that the FCCPC's failure to provide a full opportunity to present its defense, and its subsequent issuance of a final order, violates this constitutional right [5].
Meta’s argument highlights that despite its efforts to cooperate with the FCCPC, including meetings and written submissions, the FCCPC did not adequately engage with the company’s defense. This is particularly relevant in the context of Final Orders 2 and 3, which required Meta to cease data-sharing practices and revert to pre-2016 data standards [6]. Meta claims that these orders were issued without proper consideration of its technical and legal defenses, including the argument that consent is not the only basis for lawful data processing under the NDPR.
The FCCPC could argue that Meta was given multiple opportunities to respond to the allegations, including a "Notice to Show Cause" and an extended timeline for providing evidence [7]. The FCCPC may also argue that its mandate to protect consumers necessitated swift action [8], particularly given the global scale of Meta’s operations and the potential harm to Nigerian consumers.
If the court rules in Meta’s favor on this ground, it could result in the FCCPC’s final order being declared procedurally invalid. This would set a precedent for stricter procedural requirements in FCCPC investigations, potentially slowing down future enforcement actions. It could also provide stronger protections for businesses, ensuring that regulatory bodies fully consider all defenses before issuing punitive measures.
Broader Legal and Economic Implications
The legal issues raised in Meta’s appeal have broader implications for Nigeria’s regulatory environment. The case touches on the division of regulatory powers between the FCCPC and the NDPC, highlighting the need for clear boundaries in the enforcement of data privacy laws. Additionally, the size of the fine has significant economic implications, especially considering Nigeria’s ongoing foreign exchange crisis. Meta's argument that such fines could deter foreign investment resonates with wider concerns about the country’s business environment.
On a legal level, the case will likely serve as a precedent for future disputes involving multinational corporations and Nigerian regulators. If Meta succeeds in its jurisdictional challenge, it could limit the FCCPC's ability to regulate data privacy issues, thereby empowering the NDPC as the primary enforcer of data protection laws in Nigeria.
Conclusion
Meta’s appeal against the FCCPC’s $220 million fine presents a complex legal challenge, touching on issues of regulatory overreach, fine calculation, and procedural fairness. The outcome of the appeal will have far-reaching implications for both Meta and the broader regulatory landscape in Nigeria. At the core of the dispute is the question of whether the FCCPC exceeded its authority under the FCCPA by imposing fines related to data privacy violations. Additionally, the case shows the need for transparency and proportionality in the imposition of penalties by Nigerian regulators. As the case proceeds through the courts, it will likely set a significant precedent for the enforcement of digital consumer protection.
_____________________
[1] Section 17 of the FCCPA mandates the FCCPC to eliminate anti-competitive practices and unfair business conduct, including misleading and deceptive practices.
[2] In Damisa v UBA (2005) 9 NWLR (Pt. 931) 526, it was held that the expression “ultra vires” means without power or authority.
[3] Schedule 1 of the regulation provides a table of applicable base sums for computation of administrative penalties.
[4] Section 18 of the FCCPA gives the commission the power to make regulations relating to the charging and collection of fees, levies, fines and imposition of administrative penalties.
[5] This issue has been addressed in several judicial decisions, like NDUKWE V LDPC (2007) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1026) 1, where the court held that the principles of fair hearing or natural justice apply to purely administrative bodies, which are expected to act fairly in the exercise of their duties, particularly where their decisions affect the rights and obligations of people.
[6] The investigative report < https://fccpc.gov.ng/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Investigative-Report-FCCPC-WhatsApp-13.11.23.pdf >
[7] In accordance with the Commission’s regulatory, and investigative process, and in order that a target or subject of investigation is accorded the fullest opportunity to controvert, rebut, dispute, explain of clarify available evidence, on June 10th, 2021, the Commission issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) pursuant to Section 17 FCCPA. The purpose of the OSC was to inform and present the target of investigation (WhatsApp and Facebook (now Meta)) with the Commission’s initial findings based on evidence; and to invite responses in the rubric noted above.
[8] According to s. 17(g), the FCCPA eliminates anti-competitive agreements, misleading, unfair, deceptive, or unconscionable marketing, trading and business practices.
