A Federal High Court sitting in Lagos has nullified the ₦60 billion penalty imposed by the Advertising Regulatory Council of Nigeria (ARCON) against Facebook Nigeria Operations Limited, ruling that the regulator exceeded its legal powers and violated the company’s constitutional right to a fair hearing.
Justice Yellim Bogoro delivered the judgment in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/2205/2024, declaring ARCON’s Notice of Violation and Demand for Compliance dated October 21, 2024, unconstitutional, unlawful, null and void. The court also issued a perpetual injunction restraining the regulator from taking any further action to enforce the sanction against the company.
The judgment, delivered on June 18, 2026, held that ARCON lacks the statutory authority to impose fines for alleged criminal violations under the Advertising Regulatory Council of Nigeria Act, 2022, without first obtaining a conviction from a competent court or tribunal.
The dispute stemmed from allegations by ARCON that Facebook Nigeria exposed advertisements on Facebook and Instagram to Nigerian audiences without obtaining prior approval from the Advertising Standards Panel, contrary to the provisions of the ARCON Act and the Nigerian Code of Advertising.
Based on the alleged violations, the regulator directed the company to immediately stop displaying the advertisements and demanded payment of ₦60 billion, describing the action as a sanction for repeated breaches of advertising regulations.
However, Facebook Nigeria, through its counsel, Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) Mofesomo Tayo-Oyetibo, challenged the regulator’s action, arguing that ARCON lacked the legal authority to determine criminal liability or impose punitive financial sanctions through an administrative notice without first giving the company an opportunity to defend itself.
The company also argued that it neither owns nor operates Facebook or Instagram, maintaining that both platforms belong to Meta Platforms Inc., a separate foreign corporate entity, and therefore cannot be held liable for activities conducted on those platforms.
ARCON, represented by Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) Akinlolu Kehinde, urged the court to dismiss the suit, insisting that Facebook Nigeria serves as Meta’s representative in Nigeria and should therefore be responsible for regulatory compliance concerning advertisements displayed on Facebook and Instagram.
The regulator further argued that its notice was merely a compliance directive, giving Facebook Nigeria the option of complying with the regulations, paying the prescribed violation fee or facing prosecution.
Justice Bogoro rejected those submissions.
The court ruled that Facebook Nigeria is a legally distinct entity from Meta Platforms Inc. and found that ARCON failed to present sufficient evidence proving that the Nigerian company owns, controls or operates Facebook or Instagram.
According to the judge, merely asserting that Facebook Nigeria represents Meta’s interests in Nigeria was insufficient to establish liability for the alleged advertising violations.
On the issue of fair hearing, the court held that ARCON breached Section 36 of the Nigerian Constitution by making allegations and imposing a substantial financial penalty simultaneously without first allowing the company to respond.
Justice Bogoro further noted that Section 57(4) of the ARCON Act specifically requires the regulator to grant any alleged offender a fair hearing before imposing sanctions.
The court also held that the alleged offences cited by ARCON were criminal in nature because Section 34 of the ARCON Act classifies the exposure of advertisements in violation of the law as a criminal offence.
The judge explained that since the Act expressly states that punishment can only follow “upon conviction,” ARCON lacked the legal authority to impose the ₦60 billion penalty through an administrative process.
He further ruled that regardless of the terminology used by the regulator, the ₦60 billion demand amounted to a criminal fine, which only a court of competent jurisdiction has the authority to impose after due judicial proceedings.
Consequently, the court declared ARCON’s Notice of Violation and Demand for Compliance unconstitutional, unlawful and issued beyond the powers granted to the regulator under the law.
Justice Bogoro also ruled that ARCON has no authority to impose fines for alleged breaches of Sections 34(3), 54 or any other criminal provisions of the ARCON Act without a prior conviction by a competent court.
The court therefore set aside the notice in its entirety and granted a perpetual injunction restraining ARCON, its officers, agents and representatives from enforcing the October 21, 2024 notice against Facebook Nigeria Operations Limited.
The landmark ruling is expected to shape the future of digital advertising regulation in Nigeria by defining the limits of regulatory agencies’ enforcement powers and reaffirming that criminal penalties can only be imposed through due judicial process.
READ ALSO:
- Zamfara Records 3,850% Rise In Human Trafficking Cases As Borno Surges 2,670%
- INEC Deletes 1.6 Million Invalid Voter Records, Identifies 54 Officials for Possible Prosecution
- 2027: Appeal Court Swears In 375 Judges For Election Petition Tribunals
- The Dawn Of The AI Vote | The Surge By Boma Lilian Braide (Esq)
- UN Warns 2027 Could Become Hottest Year on Record
