The fate of Nigeria’s digital economy may soon be shaped by an imminent ruling from the Competition Tribunal, which has now reserved a date for judgment in the landmark Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) vs. Meta case. With both parties having adopted their briefs and legal arguments, a final decision is on the horizon, one that could either reaffirm Nigeria’s commitment to a punitive regulatory model or open the door for a more strategic and development-focused engagement with Big Tech. This case is no longer just a matter of competition law or data protection law for that matter; it is a defining moment for Nigeria’s digital future, with profound implications for investment, innovation, and global competitiveness.
The case arose from a $220 million fine imposed by FCCPC on Meta, stemming from alleged breaches of Nigeria’s competition and data protection laws. This move has been heralded in some quarters as a necessary assertion of sovereignty over global digital platforms. Meta has stated that complying with the order is technically impossible without disrupting its services in the country. This situation highlights a critical issue: Nigeria’s regulatory stance raises deeper questions about whether it aligns with the nation’s broader economic aspirations for the digital economy.
Competition Law, as Economic Law, should Serve Economic Ends
Globally, nations leverage their competition laws to advance strategic economic objectives, ensuring that enforcement actions contribute to long-term national interests. Nigeria’s Competition law is a key component of its national economic law, and in exercising its regulatory and administrative authority, the FCCPC must align its actions with the country’s broader economic policy. While fines, such as the one imposed on Meta, may generate short-term financial gains, it neither aligns with Nigeria’s broader economic priorities, nor sustainable as a competition strategy. A more enduring approach would be to ensure that financial benefits accruing from digital platforms flow to users with content-driven engagements and economic participation, and to the government through structured taxation, rather than through one-off punitive levies. Given the country’s urgent need for digital infrastructure, foreign investment, and technology-driven growth, a more development-oriented regulatory focus, one that prioritizes partnership and collaboration, over punitive measures, would better serve the national interest, in the long run.
Beyond Law, this is About Forging an Original Policy Approach
This case is more than just a legal dispute. It is a test of whether Nigeria will adopt the increasingly popular punitive regulatory model championed by the European Union (EU) or pursue a pragmatic approach that prioritizes investment, innovation, and growth. The EU model is an attractive reference point for many regulators; it has produced some of the world’s most stringent data protection laws and landmark competition cases against Big Tech. But Nigeria is not the EU; while Brussels can afford to levy multi-billion-dollar fines on Silicon Valley firms without fear of capital flight or service disruptions, Nigeria’s digital economy remains in its formative stages. The challenge is not how to curb Big Tech’s dominance but to leverage its presence for national development.
Unlike the EU, which has not produced a single global technology giant of its own, Nigeria’s priority should not involve weakening Big Tech but ensuring that its operations contribute meaningfully to the country’s digital ecosystem. The Nigerian government, particularly under the administration of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, has made foreign investment and digital transformation a policy priority. However, the FCCPC’s approach risks sending precisely the opposite message to foreign investors. Meta has already signaled that it may withdraw or scale down its operations in Nigeria if the fine is upheld. While some have dismissed this as an empty threat, the mere possibility of such an outcome is a risk Nigeria cannot afford, especially given its burgeoning population of digital natives. A forced exit or reduced presence of Meta would not only deprive Nigeria of critical digital infrastructure investment but also set a precedent that could discourage other technology firms from deepening their footprint in the country.
Meta is Not Entirely Without Fault
At the same time, Meta must recognize that its approach to regulatory challenges can be seen as dismissive or confrontational. While it may argue that compliance with FCCPC’s orders is impossible from an operational standpoint, its willingness to engage constructively with Nigerian regulators has been called into question. Rather than issuing ultimatums about withdrawing or reducing services, a more productive approach would involve proactive engagement with regulators to foster understanding. It is true that global digital platforms like Meta often operate within highly intricate ecosystems, relying on complex proprietary algorithmic technologies that often leave regulators at a disadvantage. This knowledge gap creates regulatory blind spots, making it challenging to craft enforcement mechanisms that are appropriate and technically realistic. Instead of resisting regulatory scrutiny, Meta has a responsibility, not just in this case but generally, to actively collaborate with authorities to provide greater transparency into its operational frameworks and exploring technically feasible compliance mechanisms that realistically address regulatory concerns. Meta should see not see this as a concession, but a necessity to evolve a regulatory technology (RegTech) era in Nigeria, where tech-driven compliance and innovation reinforce each other, to strengthen the country’s digital economy.
Since this matter is grounded in both Competition and Data Protection Laws, and competition law is fundamentally an economic law, one that is never applied in isolation from national economic policies and realities, the need for a pragmatic resolution is even more imperative. Regulatory enforcement should not be blind to the overarching economic objectives of the government, particularly when Nigeria is actively seeking foreign investments and global cooperation to strengthen its digital economy. Moreover, the Nigeria Data Protection Commission (NDPC) has already taken a progressive stance, emphasizing a culture of compliance rather than punitive enforcement. This sanction risks diluting this philosophy, potentially creating confusion within Nigeria’s fledgling data protection ecosystem by signaling a departure from the compliance-driven approach that is gradually taking hold in the industry. A more harmonized strategy in competition regulation would not only reinforce regulatory consistency but also enhance Nigeria’s attractiveness for investment, foster innovation, and maintain credibility while securing meaningful commitments from international tech players like Meta.
Major Trends in Big Tech Regulation
Globally, there are three major approaches to regulating Big Tech. The EU, for all its regulatory zeal, has adopted an approach that many critics argue is less about consumer protection and more about geopolitical competition. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and Digital Markets Act (DMA) have led to record fines: €1.2 billion against Meta, €4.34 billion against Google, and €746 million against Amazon, all American companies. Yet, these laws primarily serve to restrict the influence of foreign tech giants in the European market rather than doing anything to support the emergence of a regional Big Tech within the EU. Quite to the contrary, the EU continues to struggle with a significant €700 billion annual investment gap compared to the United States, according to a report by McKinsey and the World Economic Forum. This raises critical concerns about whether such a punitive model fosters technological competitiveness or ultimately stifles economic growth and development.
Meanwhile, the United States, the birthplace of most Big Tech companies, has taken a more nuanced approach, balancing enforcement with the recognition that American technology firms are critical to national economic and global competitiveness. Antitrust cases against Google and Meta exist, but the US has not aggressively pursued punitive fines in the way the EU has. China, on the other hand, has opted for state control, ensuring that its digital champions, Alibaba, Tencent, and Huawei, comply with the government priorities to strengthen its domestic market while expanding their global reach.
Nigeria does not fit into any of these categories; it lacks the EU’s policy influence, the US’s technological dominance, and China’s state-driven digital ecosystem. Its regulatory decisions must, therefore, be guided by realism, not imitation.
Precedents for this Approach
Other developing countries have successfully negotiated settlements with Big Tech instead of imposing rigid fines. In South Africa, Google was required to enhance the visibility of local businesses in search rankings as part of a regulatory settlement. Kenya worked with Microsoft to develop localized cloud computing solutions, while India – who recently launched a new case against Meta, had once negotiated with WhatsApp to strengthen data privacy protections for Indian users. Given this global trend towards structured settlement, Nigeria has the opportunity to leverage on this. The Competition Tribunal itself, rather than delivering a definitive ruling declaring a winner or loser in the appeal, could play a crucial role in pointing parties to a path for settlement.
FCCPC’s Assertiveness is Commendable
Without a doubt, the FCCPC deserves credit for taking on one of the world’s most powerful technology firms and for highlighting the importance of consumer protection and competition in the digital space. But an adversarial legal battle benefit no one. If the Competition Appeals Tribunal upholds the fine, Meta may withdraw investment and restrict local services. If the tribunal rules in Meta’s favor, the FCCPC may lose regulatory momentum, weakening its ability to enforce future compliance and stunting its newfound bravery in expanding its regulatory mandate over global organizations. Neither outcome serves Nigeria’s best interests. The smarter course of action would be to negotiate a settlement that ensures regulatory compliance while also securing investment commitments that enhance Nigeria’s digital landscape. A well-crafted Consent Agreement can document parties’ commitments and prescribe a framework for compliance.
We are At a Key Strategic Crossroads
This case offers an opportunity to establish a new paradigm for regulating Big Tech in Africa, one that is not adversarial but strategic. Regulation should not be a tool for punishment but a catalyst for development. Nigeria needs companies like Meta as development partners, not convenient soft targets for financial penalties. The task for the government is to take the lead in designing a framework that ensures compliance while fostering collaboration.
Now, more than ever, Nigeria’s leadership has an opportunity to act. As the country’s chief law officer, the Attorney General of the Federation, Chief Lateef Fabgemi SAN, should urgently mediate a pragmatic resolution. The Minister of Communications, Innovation and Digital Economy, Dr. Bosun Tijani, may consider stepping in to ensure that regulatory decisions align with Nigeria’s broader digital transformation agenda. Beyond these institutional roles, it is imperative that this matter reaches the highest levels of government. The President’s Special Adviser on Technology and Digital Economy, Idris Alubankudi, may need to personally ensure that the urgency of this case is escalated to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu. The government still has a window, though rapidly closing, to ensure that this matter is resolved in a way that serves the national interest. Fortunately, the procedural rules at the Competition Tribunal allow parties to withdraw the appeal upon reaching a negotiated settlement.
With the Tribunal’s ruling around the corner, the world is watching how Nigeria handles this moment. Will it follow the European model imposing hefty fines, or will it chart its course, one that prioritizes growth, innovation, and long-term digital competitiveness? The right choice is clear. The future of Nigeria’s digital economy may well depend on this moment, as it provides the clearest indication yet of the country’s tech policy direction, particularly in its approach to Big Tech and the complexities of global collaboration in shaping a thriving digital ecosystem.
Avoiding a Zero-Sum Outcome
If the urgent intervention advocated in this article does not materialize, the Tribunal should consider an approach that avoids a lose-lose outcome; referring the matter back to the FCCPC for a last attempt at a mediated settlement. This allows both parties an opportunity to reach a mutually beneficial resolution before the Tribunal proceeds with a final judgment.
This approach is not without precedent. Examples from multiple jurisdictions show that competition tribunals often prioritize settlements to balance enforcement with economic stability. The EU resolves many cartel cases through settlement procedures, while the U.S. Department of Justice uses consent decrees, as seen in the landmark Microsoft case in 2001. Australia’s ACCC enforces compliance through court-approved undertakings, avoiding prolonged trials. Regulators in South Africa, Turkey, and Hong Kong, among others, have taken similar approaches, securing corrective actions without stifling market participation. These examples highlight that rather than a rigid punitive approach, competition authorities frequently mandate settlements to ensure compliance while sustaining investment, a model Nigeria’s Competition Tribunal could wisely consider in the FCCPC-Meta case.
On FCCPC’s Independence
Why seek broader governmental intervention in a matter where the FCCPC enjoys statutory independence? While such independence is vital for its enforcement role, the FCCPC cannot be left by the government to operate in policy island when broader national economic priorities are at stake. Strategic government intervention is justified in such circumstances. Globally, similar interventions have occurred, such as in the U.S. Microsoft case, where a coordinated policy effort resulted in a consent decree balancing enforcement with innovation. In South Africa and India, competition enforcement has been aligned with national development goals through collaborative, multi-stakeholder approaches. In cases like FCCPC vs. Meta, integrating high-level government leadership can ensure regulatory consistency while safeguarding Nigeria’s long-term economic and digital transformation objectives.
As time ticks, Nigeria and the global tech community wait.
Author’s NOTE: For the avoidance of doubt, this request for policy intervention is entirely independent and not sponsored, influenced, or commissioned by Meta or any other party. Johnson & Wilner LLP has no financial, legal, or professional engagement with Meta in this matter, nor are we acting on behalf of any stakeholder. This is part of our law firm’s pro bono policy advocacy effort, consistent with our long-standing commitment to shaping Nigeria’s technology law and regulatory frameworks.
Basil Udotai Esq., Abuja based Tech Policy Attorney, is the founding partner of Johnson & Wilner LLP, a business and technology law practice.
Join BusinessDay whatsapp Channel, to stay up to date
Open In Whatsapp
