![[Mobility Inside] Connecting Cars To The Internet Via Telematics](https://i0.wp.com/brandspurng.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/fbedcf27064c548c94eece6093311714.png?resize=218%2C150&ssl=1 "‘Ghost Cars’ Bait Tactic Under FTC Scrutiny As Dealers Promo Unavailable Vehicles")
The Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) judgement imposing a $220 million penalty should be set aside by the Competition and Consumer Protection Tribunal, according to WhatsApp and its parent firm, Meta Platforms Incorporated, citing 22 reasons in all.
Citing a notice of appeal exclusive to Nairametrics against the FCCPC and following earlier reports from BrandSpur digital news desk, Meta Platforms Incorporated was fined $220,000,000 by the Federal Ministry of Industry, Trade and Investment (FMITI) body, the FCCPC, for purportedly discriminating actions against Nigerian customers and data.
In a statement dated July 26, 2024, and signed by Dr. Adamu Abdullahi, Acting Chief Executive Officer of the FCCPC, the organisation explained why Meta platforms and WhatsApp were banned by the FCCPC. The fine came after a joint investigation of Meta Platforms’ behaviour, privacy rules, and practices conducted by the Commission and the Nigeria Data Protection Commission (NDPC) over 38 months, from May 2021 to December 2023.
The statement claims that in May 2021, the Commission ordered Meta Platforms, Inc. (formerly Facebook Inc.) and WhatsApp LLC to provide a defence concerning its investigative report, which described how their actions were purportedly in violation of applicable data rules.
According to reports, Meta responded to some of the requests and summonses made as part of the joint inquiry.
The Commission said that the found investigation reveals Meta Platforms had been violating Nigeria’s data protection and consumer protection regulations continuously for a considerable amount of time. It raised concerns about how Meta was allegedly abusing and invading customers in Nigeria by using data subjects.
The misuse of personal information without authorisation, unfair treatment in comparison to other areas with comparable laws, and the use of market power to impose privacy laws that gather personal data without offering customers the choice to agree or disagree were among them.
Part of the FCCPC report holds that: “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.”
Concerning WhatsApp, Meta platform grounds for appeal, the legal team of the social media giants contended that the FCCPC made mistakes in all of the conclusions, recommendations, and rulings included in its orders, as evidenced by the 22 reasons included in their notice of appeal that was accessible by BrandSpur.
Using their appeal, they are requesting that the tribunal annul all of the FCCPC’s directives.
Here are the reasons listed by WhatsApp and Meta Platforms:
Vague Rights of Nigerian Users: Meta Platforms maintained the order from the FCCPC to: “immediately reinstate the rights of Nigerian users to self-determine and control the use, processing, sharing, or transfer of their data,” is very unclear and unreasonable ambiguous.
Meta claims that the responsibility demanded by the FCCPC places an unmanageable burden on the appellants because it ignores the operational intricacies present in the WhatsApp service.
Ambiguous privacy policy order: Meta claimed that Nigerian users have the absolute right to reject WhatsApp’s privacy policy by declining to accept the terms of service and by not using the app.
Furthermore, it claimed that WhatsApp had changed its privacy policy to allow Nigerian users to appropriately exercise their legal rights before the FCCPC opened an investigation, casting doubt on the clarity of the privacy policy directive it had given.
Unjustifiable order on data sharing between platforms: According to Meta, the FCCPC’s decision to stop sharing WhatsApp user data with other Facebook firms and other parties right away is unjustified until consumers have given their voluntary approval for every facet of the data’s use. It said that requiring WhatsApp to obtain an agreement before exchanging data is discriminatory, goes against the letter of the law, and ignores accepted business practices.
Meta privacy policy not subject to FCCPC approval: According to WhatsApp and Meta, Nigerian law does not mandate that a data controller’s privacy policy be authorised beforehand by the Commission or the Nigeria Data Protection Commission (NDPC), nor does it give any agency the authority to insist on such prior approval.
Meta can’t revert to its data-sharing practices of 2016: According to Meta, the Commission cannot lawfully order the appellants to return to the “data sharing practices adopted in 2016” (which gave users the option to provide or withhold authorization). It argued that since the companies’ data practices do not break any Nigerian laws, the Commission has no right to issue such a mandate.
Unclear blockage of WhatsApp data transfer to Facebook: The appellants contended that it is unclear why users should be required to provide specific authorisation for WhatsApp to discontinue sending data to Facebook and other third parties when the messaging service can be fully utilised without requiring the creation of a Facebook account or any other Meta product.
No need for written assurance to FCCPC: The complaining parties contended that they had not undertaken any actions that would be harmful to the interests of their Nigerian users and that the FCCPC had no power to require them to produce a “written assurance” guaranteeing that it would not violate the rights of consumers.
Erroneous proposed remedy package for consumers: The complaining parties contended that they are in compliance with no remedy “package.” Moreover, they argued that the order’s 15-day window for implementing the “Proposed Remedy Package” for customers is insufficient and does not give enough time for its execution.
Meta can’t pay FCCPC $35,000 as investigation cost: According to the appellants, the Commission made a legal error when it mandated that the: “Meta Parties shall reimburse the Commission the cost of the investigation in the sum of Thirty-Five Thousand U.S. Dollars only ($35,000.00) (at prevailing exchange rate where applicable) under Section 23(2)(f) of the FCCPA.”
They contended that because the appellants are not legally compelled or liable to pay these fees, there is no legal basis for the Commission to order them to return the costs of carrying out its investigation.
Additionally, the parties involved claimed that by imposing a large penalty without providing them with a chance to challenge the proposed amount’s calculation or comprehend how the penalty would be determined, the FCCPC had denied them a fair trial.
Impossible to build Data Consent Mechanisms: The parties in question contended that it would be difficult to identify and develop a consent procedure for each data point collected by Nigerian consumers, in violation of the FCCPC’s directive on compliance. They continued by saying it would be “very expensive.”
FCCPC can investigate Meta without requiring the presence of Its personnel: The people in question contended that Meta’s data handling compliance audits can always be performed by FCCPC specialists without the necessity for its staff.
They stated: “Further, the appellants have no physical presence in Nigeria, thus negating any need for, or point in having, an audit from the Commission.”
Meta Can’t be compelled to obtain FCCPC prior approval: The appellants claimed that the Commission lacked the authority to order them to get permission from the NDPC or the Commission before publishing their privacy policy within ten days. They added that significant changes to the company’s privacy policy might take months to execute and necessitate intensive consultation with all WhatsApp stakeholders.
Proposed remedy package will take time to implement: The appellants contended that, by the FCCPC’s directive, it is not technically feasible to execute any suggested remedy package for Nigerian consumers (whose rights have allegedly been violated) promptly—within 15 days.
WhatsApp, Meta does not coerce Nigerian consumers: The appellants contended that Order Number 5 of the Final Order of the FCCPC is meant to relate to: “tying in the sense of coercion by an allegedly dominant party of a consumer to accept a tied product as a condition of receiving a tying product, leading to the foreclosure of competition,” no such thing exists in WhatsApp or Meta.
Meta wasn’t formally probed by FCCPC: The appellants said that it was improper for the Commission to require Meta to provide material for the WhatsApp inquiry without first opening an official investigation into Meta.
They argued that WhatsApp is a distinct legal entity from Meta.
No need to penalize Meta: The appellants additionally contended that the Commission lacked evidence to support its decision to designate Meta as a target of its orders since there was no proof that WhatsApp was acting on behalf of Meta.
Fair hearing: WhatsApp and Meta contended that the Commission had erred in issuing the Final judgement, breaching the appellants’ right to a fair hearing by failing to take into account their submissions before releasing the final judgement.
WhatsApp, Meta was not allowed to query the calculation of the penalty: The appellants requested that the tribunal rule that the Commission erred in failing to give them a chance to comment on the amount of the fine, the methodology used to determine the fine or the reasonable time frame needed for compliance with its decisions.
FCCPC made no findings against WhatsApp, Meta: The appellants’ attorneys further contended that the Commission’s Final Order was inherently faulty since it omitted any findings of fact or law and gave no justification for the rulings or sanctions.
FCCPC fined WhatsApp and Meta without the signature of its Executive Chairman or Vice Chairman: The appellants contended that at the time the Final Order was signed, the post of Executive Vice-Chairman of the FCCPC was purportedly unfilled.
According to it: “To be clear, while President Bola Tinubu appointed Mr. Olatunji Bello on June 24, 2024, as the Executive Vice-Chairman of the Commission, his appointment had, at all material times, not been confirmed by the Senate following Section 5 of the FCCPA.
“Thus, it effectively means that the position of the Executive Vice-Chairman was vacant on the date shown on the face of the Final Order,” it added.
Unreasonable orders: To WhatsApp and Meta, the Final Order of the FCCPC “is unreasonable and against the weight of evidence.”
In an attempt to overturn every ruling made in the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission’s Final Order, they begged the Tribunal to grant their appeal.
It is pertinent to know that as of May 2023, there were around 41.6 million Facebook members in Nigeria, or 18.5% of the total population, according to Statista data.
WhatsApp reacted, following the FCCPC’s orders, saying: “In 2021, we went to users globally to explain how talking to businesses, among other things, would work. While there was a lot of confusion then, it has actually proven quite popular.”
Fines like the ones Meta was hit with, however, are not unusual. The tech behemoth Facebook was fined a record €1.2 billion by the European Data Protection Agency last year for violating EU privacy laws.
According to the Irish Data Protection Commission, Facebook’s parent company, Meta, violated the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) by sending a significant quantity of the personal information of Facebook users in Europe to the US without providing sufficient safeguards against US data collection activities.
The Irish authority levied four fines on Meta’s platforms—Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp—ranging from €225 million to €405 million between 2021 and 2023.
Amazon has already been hit with a charge of €746 million by Luxembourg. The European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) privacy legislation has resulted in some of the highest fines ever imposed on Big Tech companies, including Amazon, Meta, and Google, throughout the last five years.
The courts will now have to decide whether the recent fines and rulings against WhatsApp and Meta Platforms are lawful or unlawful.
