Technology
NDPC Seeks Dismissal of Meta’s Suit Against $32.8m Fine
By Adedapo Adesanya
The Nigeria Data Protection Commission (NDPC) has asked a Federal High Court (FHC) in Abuja to dismiss, in its entirety, a suit filed by Meta Platforms Incorporated challenging the fine it imposed on the organisation.
The NDPC had on February 18, 2025, imposed a remedial fee of $32.8 million and eight corrective orders against the social media giant, which operates Facebook, WhatsApp, and Instagram.
The American multinational technology company was alleged to have violated the fundamental privacy rights of its Nigerian users with respect to behavioural advertising on Facebook and Instagram.
Dissatisfied with the action, Meta Platforms, in a motion ex-parte dated and filed on February 26, dragged the regulatory agency to court as sole respondent.
In the motion ex-parte marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/355/2025 and moved by Mr Fred Onuofia (SAN) on March 4, Justice James Omotosho granted one of the two orders sought.
The judge had granted leave to Meta to commence proceedings by way of judicial-review seeking, inter alia, an order of certiorari quashing the compliance and enforcement orders dated February 18 issued by NDPC against the company, “and all other investigations, proceedings and actions taken by respondent against the applicant leading to the Final Orders.”
He, however, refused to grant Meta’s relief seeking a stay of the proceedings of all matters relating to the “Final Orders” issued by NDPC against it, pending the hearing and determination of the judicial review proceedings.
Instead, the judge made an order of accelerated hearing of the suit.
The firm, in its originating summons filed by the lead counsel, Mr Gbolahan Elias, wants the court to determine whether NDPC’s investigative process and ensuing compliance and enforcement orders (the Final Orders) issued on February 18 were invalid, null and void.
Meta, in its application dated and filed March 19, hinged the question on the allegation that the commission failed to provide it with adequate notice or an opportunity to be heard on alleged violations of the NDP Act prior to issuing the Final Orders.
Meta argued that such action violated its due process rights, including its right to fair hearing under Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), among other reliefs.
But NDPC, in a preliminary objection to Meta’s suit, told the court that the suit is incompetent and the court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain same.
The regulatory agency, in its application dated April 10 and filed April 11 by its lawyer and the head, Alpha & Rohi Law Firm, Mr Adeola Adedipe (SAN), urged the court to either strike out or dismiss the case.
Mr Adedipe, in two grounds of argument, submitted that the originating summons filed by the company is incompetent for non-compliance with the mandatory provision of Order 34 Rule 6(1) of the FHC (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2019.
He also argued that the suit, as presently constituted, is grossly incompetent and academic, the reliefs sought therein, not being capable of activating the jurisdiction of the court.
“The suit is liable to be struck out/dismissed, in limine,” Mr Adedipe argued.
The NDPC, in the affidavit attached to the preliminary objection, stated that by an ex-parte motion, Meta Inc. filed the case.
The commission said that the company had filed the suit, seeking leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the respondent taken on February 18.
It averred that there was a statement made pursuant to Order 34 of the Rules of the court, supporting the said application, containing the company’s two reliefs.
It said the court granted permission on March 4 for Meta to commence the proceeding, by way of judicial review.
According to the respondent, the originating summons filed by the plaintiff was commenced on 19th March, 2025, 15 days after leave was granted for the judicial review proceedings to be commenced.
NDPC, however, contended that the reliefs contained in the originating summons were completely different from the reliefs contained in the statement filed to support the ex-parte application for judicial review.
The commission also said it would be in the interest of justice for its objection to be sustained.
Also, in a counter affidavit deposed to by NDPC ‘s staff, Mr Osunleye Olatubosun, in opposition to the originating summons filed by Meta on March 19, he said the suit was brought under the judicial review procedure, primarily, to contest the decision of his office against Meta.
Mr Olatubosun averred that in the NDPC‘s decision, Meta was sanctioned after a protracted and thorough process of investigation.
He said the investigative power of the commission was activated by a petition written by an organisation, the Personal Data Protection Awareness Initiative (PDPAI).
The PDPAI had alleged that the company breached the data protection rights of users of Facebook and Instagram.
He averred that in the said petition, the plaintiff was alleged to be engaging in behavioural advertising without obtaining explicit consent of data subjects (users).
He said compelling evidence were provided in support of the petition, revealing Meta’s private policy showing that it conducted behavioural advertising, without obtaining consent from the data subjects.
Mr Olatubosun said during investigation, NDPC drew the company’s attention to some very disturbing violations in this regard, especially as to non-consensual data processing activities.
He said these included the disclosure of sensitive personal data of minors relating to their sex lives; sensitive personal data of minors involving drug use; and sensitive personal data of minor pupils in school, involving erotic dancing.
He said it also revealed sponsored advertisements on gambling, involving the manipulated personal data of a female journalist on TVC; sponsored advertisement on gambling involving the manipulated personal data of a male journalist on Channels TV; and manipulated personal data of public figures, conspiring to commit a felony; explicit video of a woman delivering a child, with her genitals in full display, etc.
He said Meta was, therefore, found in breach of certain provisions of the Nigeria Data Protection (NDP) Act, and that its promotion of debasing images outside the expectation of concerned data subjects offended the principles of fairness, lawfulness, transparency, accountability and duty of care.
Besides, the officer said failure of the company to file a compliance audit with the commission for the year 2022, was a breach of the NDP Act.
He equally said that cross border transfer of data by Meta, contravened mandatory requirements under the NDP Act.
Mr Olatubosun, who said that it was wrong for the plaintiff to process the data of its non-users of it platforms, added that Meta’s privacy policy violates relevant provisions of the NDP Act.
Against these development, the officer said the commission ordered the firm to, henceforth, “seek express consent of data subjects in Nigeria, where their personal data for behavioural advertising will be process.
“Carry out Data Processing Impact Assessment, taking into account the democratic development of Nigeria; update its privacy policy; cease and desist from transferring data out of Nigeria without approval of the commission, in line with the NDP Act.
“Create an appropriate icon link for educative videos, on the dangers of manipulative, unlawful and unfair data processing; put in place sufficient measures for the protection of data privacy on its platforms; and payment of 32, 800, 000 USD.”
Mr Olatubosun said that the case lacks merit, praying the court to dismiss it.
Meanwhile, other reliefs sought by Meta in the main suit, include whether NDPC’s initiation of its investigation, based on a petition submitted by an organisation, rather than on a complaint filed by a “data subject” (as defined under Section 65 of NDPA), invalidates the investigation and the Final Orders.
It also prayed the court for an order of certiorari, quashing the investigation, all proceedings constituted thereby, as well as the ensuing Final Orders issued by the commission against it.
It equally sought an order of injunction restraining NDPC from enforcing or taking steps to enforce any or all of the orders and/or intimidating, harassing or coercing the applicant to pay the purported remedial fee as contained in the Final Orders.
However, Meta, in a motion on notice filed on April 23, sought to amend its statement attached to the ex-parte application, having seen through the notice of preliminary objection which was filed by Mr Adeola Adedipe, SAN, on behalf of the commission.
Mr Onuofia while adopting all their processes, said the motion sought an order granting leave to the company to amend its statement pursuant to Order 34, Rule 3(2)(a) of the FHC rules.
He said it also sought an order deeming the amended statement, which had already been filed and served on NDPC as having been properly filed and served.
Giving grounds why his application should be grated, Mr Onuofia said on March 4, the court heard and granted their motion ex-parte for leave.
He said, thereafter, Meta filed it originating summons on March 19.
The lawyer, however, told the judge that the firm sought to amend the wording of the reliefs and grounds set out in the statement to replicate the wording used in the originating summons.
He said the decision was to ensure efficiency and the full and fair hearing of the issues arising in the originating summons.
According to him, the proposed amended statement highlights the amendments that the applicant seeks permission to make to the statement.
Mr Onuofia said the requested amendment would not cause any injustice to NDPC.
On his part, Mr Adedipe opposed Mr Onuofia’s prayer seeking an amendment, urging the court to dismiss the application.
The senior counsel told the court that a counter affidavit was filed on May 2 in opposition to the motion and argued that the application was presumptuous and misleading.
He submitted that an amendment of a process is not as of right, but entirely at the discretion of the court, where such is practicable and lawful to do so.
Justice Omotosho adjourned the matter until October 3 for consolidated ruling on the preliminary objection and motion to amend.
By Aduragbemi Omiyale
WhatsApp has been updated with a web calling feature, allowing users to now make and receive audio and video calls, both one-on-one and group, directly from WhatsApp Web.
A notice from the Meta-owned messaging platform disclosed that this feature works without the need to download any app.
It was disclosed that this update was made to WhatsApp to make it easier for users to make calls wherever they are and on whatever device, phone or laptop.
Users will have access to features available on their other devices, including screen sharing, reactions, and a dedicated Calls tab with full call history and favourites, all from their browsers.
WhatsApp noted that calls from this feature are end-to-end encrypted, with no time limits and at no cost, as it is the same private experience they expect from the platform.
WhatsApp has also been embedded with easy call transfer, enabling the movement of an active group call from one device to another without hanging up. Users can seamlessly transfer calls to WhatsApp Web or Desktop when they arrive home to collaborate on a larger screen – or vice versa.
The platform further said it now has QuickHD, which allows for an improved video experience at the beginning of a call. With QuickHD, users can now enjoy high-definition video immediately in the very first few seconds of the call.
In addition, it has launched noise suppression to remove the background noise around callers so their voices come through clearly to the person on the other end, even in loud or busy environments. This can be managed at any time in in-call settings.
WhatsApp said these features are rolling out gradually and will be available to everyone soon, expressing its desire to make WhatsApp calling simpler to use.
Modded Minecraft worlds take weeks to build. Custom biomes, terraformed landscapes, established bases — losing any of it to a corrupted chunk or a failed update is devastating. Backups aren’t optional for modded servers. They’re essential.
Modded hosting with reliable backups protects everything players have built across every minecraft biome types the pack introduces — without requiring manual backup routines that nobody remembers to run.
Why Modded Worlds Are More Vulnerable to Data Loss
Vanilla Minecraft worlds are relatively stable. Modded worlds have more ways to break. Mod updates can corrupt chunk data if block IDs change. Crashes during chunk generation leave partial files. Automated farms that run while no players are online can cause chunk-level issues over time.
Biomes added by mods require extra care. Changing biome mods later can cause unexpected problems. If the old biome data no longer exists, Minecraft may not know how to read parts of the world anymore. The Minecraft Wiki explains that every generated chunk keeps its own biome information in the save. Modded biomes require their mod to be present to load correctly — removing the mod without migrating chunks first causes permanent data loss in those areas.
Minecraft Biome Types: What Mods Add
People often focus on giant mountains or rare structures, but smaller biome changes matter too. A carefully designed minecraft grass biome can completely change the appearance of an entire region. Once that combines with improved forests, rivers, and mountain generation, exploration naturally takes longer because there’s almost always another interesting place nearby. There’s a massive difference once biome mods are installed. Biomes O’ Plenty alone adds over 80 biomes. Terralith adds another 95 plus, although it still builds worlds using Minecraft’s regular generation system rather than a custom one. Oh The Biomes You’ll Go adds tropical and fantasy biomes not found in either.
Each of these creates a richer world to explore — and more unique terrain to protect. A player who spends two sessions exploring and settling in a modded cherry blossom grove loses something irreplaceable if that chunk gets corrupted without a backup.
Content creator and modpack player Noxite has described modded biome exploration as one of the most memorable experiences in the game — “every new biome feels like discovering a location that exists only in your world.” Backups protect that discovery.
Many players only start thinking about backups after something goes wrong. It’s surprisingly easy for a modded world to develop problems. Maybe the server restarts halfway through chunk generation, or a mod update changes world data in a way the old save no longer understands. Even experienced server owners don’t get through every update without issues. Sometimes everything looks fine until someone explores a new biome and discovers broken chunks. At that point, having a recent backup is usually the simplest solution instead of trying to repair damaged terrain piece by piece.
What a Reliable Backup System Looks Like for Modded Servers
For modded worlds, backup requirements go beyond vanilla minimums:
- Daily automated backups — at minimum; hourly for active community servers
- Full world backups — not just player data; entire world folder including all dimensions
- Pre-update snapshots — automatic backup triggered before any mod or server update
- Offsite storage — backups stored separately from the server to survive hardware failure
- Easy restoration — one-click restore to a specific backup without technical support
Protecting Every Biome You’ve Explored
Minecraft biomes wiki entries for modded biomes often include notes about save compatibility across versions. The community’s experience is consistent: mod updates break worlds more often than player actions do. Regular backups are the only reliable protection.
Choose modded hosting with reliable backups that runs automatically, stores multiple restore points, and makes restoration simple. The time investment in setting up proper backups is always less than the time lost rebuilding after a preventable data loss event.
The rules have changed. How companies actually know their customers — really know them — looks almost nothing like it did ten years ago. Old-school research methods are drowning. Too slow, too narrow, too dependent on humans manually stitching together datasets that have already gone cold. Markets shift in days now, not quarters. And the cost of a slow read on consumer behavior keeps climbing. This isn’t just a tooling upgrade. The underlying logic of how businesses decide what to build, what to charge, and who to reach has been gutted and rebuilt from scratch. Staying reactive isn’t a strategy anymore. It’s a liability.
1. Real-Time Data Processing and Pattern Recognition
Consumer intelligence used to run on stale numbers. Analysts dug into data weeks — sometimes months — after whatever actually happened. Modern AI kills that lag. Entirely. These systems chew through enormous volumes of behavioral data on the fly, surfacing patterns that human teams couldn’t find in the same timeframe with ten times the headcount. Machine learning algorithms can process millions of customer interactions, transactions, and behavioral signals simultaneously — pulling clean signal out of what would otherwise be undifferentiated noise. A retailer can track sentiment across social media, reviews, and support tickets right now, catching a brewing problem or an emerging trend in hours rather than weeks. Inventory shifts, pricing moves, message pivots — all of it happens before a trend fully crystallizes. That’s a different game entirely.
2. Predictive Analytics and Consumer Behavior Forecasting
Here’s what actually changed: AI stops consumer intelligence from being a backward-looking exercise. Instead of cataloguing what customers already did, companies can now forecast what they’re likely to do next — and with striking accuracy. Advanced ML models thread together historical patterns and live behavioral signals to predict churn, flag high-value prospects, and project demand across entire product lines. A telecom company can spot which customers are quietly drifting toward a competitor before they ever make the switch — and intervene first. That’s not a marginal improvement. It’s a fundamentally different posture. Resources flow toward the segments that actually matter, rather than spreading thin across the whole base and hoping something sticks.
3. Personalization at Scale
Consumers expect personalized experiences. Full stop. Meeting that expectation at scale — for millions of people at once — is simply beyond what human analysts and traditional segmentation can deliver. Machine learning models read individual purchase histories, browsing patterns, preferences, and demographic signals to build dynamic profiles that drive product recommendations, custom messaging, and tailored interfaces. When building and refining these individualized profiles, marketers who need to enrich their first-party data with verified behavioral signals rely on audience data providers to ensure their models are trained on accurate, high-quality consumer information. An e-commerce platform can serve each visitor a genuinely different experience — different layouts, different offers, different content — all built around that visitor’s unique fingerprint. Conversion lifts. Lifetime value climbs. People respond when recommendations actually fit their lives, not just the average of everyone else’s.
4. Sentiment Analysis and Brand Perception Monitoring
Knowing how consumers feel about a brand means wading through unstructured mess. Reviews, comment threads, support tickets, social posts, video captions — none of it parses cleanly by hand at any useful speed. Natural language processing handles it. NLP systems automatically scan text-based content across digital channels, classifying sentiment as positive, negative, or neutral while bucketing feedback by topic, product feature, or customer segment. An automaker can track online conversations about a specific reliability concern and catch it before it snowballs into a full-blown reputation crisis. No waiting for quarterly surveys. No lag. Brand perception monitoring becomes continuous — and decisions about product fixes, messaging shifts, or service interventions get grounded in real signal rather than gut instinct.
5. Competitive Intelligence and Market Positioning Analysis
Competitive intelligence used to mean manual tracking, sprawling spreadsheets, and perpetually incomplete pictures. AI automates the entire collection-and-analysis loop. ML models watch competitor pricing moves, product launches, promotions, and messaging shifts across digital channels — then stack that data against a company’s own position. Gaps surface. Threats register earlier. A financial services firm can monitor exactly which themes competitors are pushing on social media and which ones are actually generating engagement — then sharpen their own positioning accordingly. Real-time visibility into competitive dynamics means strategic calls about where to invest, which markets to enter, and how to stand apart in crowded categories aren’t made blind anymore.
Conclusion
What AI has done to consumer intelligence isn’t incremental. It’s structural. Real-time processing of massive datasets. Forecasting future behavior instead of autopsying the past. Personalization that reaches millions, not hundreds. Continuous sentiment monitoring. Automated competitive tracking. None of these were realistic options a decade ago. They are now. Companies that wire these capabilities into their core operations make faster, sharper decisions — ones that show up directly in revenue, satisfaction scores, and market share. Those that don’t will keep falling further behind. And the gap between organizations that wield these tools well and those still grinding through traditional approaches? It’s not closing. It’s widening every quarter.
