Meta Fighting Nigerian Fines, Warns Could Shut Facebook, Instagram
A Nigerian tribunal last week rejected the US social media giant's appeal against a $220 million fine imposed by the country's consumer protection agency, the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC).
In appeals court papers cited by various media, including the BBC and The Africa Report, Meta said it "may be forced to effectively shut down the Facebook and Instagram services in Nigeria in order to mitigate the risk of enforcement measures".
Meta's social media platforms -- WhatsApp, Facebook and Instagram -- are among the most popular in the country.
Meta has until the end of June to pay the fine, Nigerian media reported.
"We disagree with the NDPC's (Nigerian Data Protection Commission) decision, which fails to take into account the wide range of settings and tools that allow everyone using Facebook and Instagram in Nigeria to control how their information is used," a Meta spokesperson told AFP.
"We're committed to protecting user privacy and have appealed the decision," the company spokesperson said in an email response.
Nigeria had accused Meta of violating the country's data protection and consumer rights laws on Facebook and WhatsApp.
FCCPC chief executive officer Adamu Abdullahi had said investigations carried out in conjunction with the NDPC between May 2021 and December 2023 revealed "invasive practices against data subjects/consumers in Nigeria".
A WhatsApp spokesperson told AFP on Saturday: "The FCCPC order contains multiple inaccuracies and misrepresents how WhatsApp works, and we are urgently applying to stay the order and appeal the Tribunal's decision to avoid any impact to users."
On Saturday, the FCCPC described Meta's reaction as "a calculated move aimed at inducing negative public reaction and potentially pressuring the FCCPC to reconsider its decision".
In its statement it said that Meta had been sanctioned for "similar breaches" in Texas, India, South Korea, France and Australia, but had "never resorted to the blackmail of threatening to exit those countries. They obeyed".
"Threatening to leave Nigeria does not absolve Meta of liabilities for the outcome of a judicial process," the statement read.
Nigeria had some 164.3 million internet subscriptions as of March, according to figures published on the National Communication Commission's website.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
DW
2 days ago
- DW
Canada axes digital tax to ease Trump trade tensions – DW – 06/30/2025
Canada has withdrawn a tax that could have reaped billions in revenue to bring Donald Trump back to the table. It raises the possibility that other taxes targeting big tech could be in the US president's sights next. Canada has canceled its digital services tax (DST) to entice the United States to return to the negotiating table for a long-awaited trade and defense deal. The tax, which was due to take effect on Monday, would have applied a 3% levy on revenues earned within Canada by companies — from any country — whose services are digitally based and earn more than 20 million Canadian dollars ($14.7 million, €12.4 million) per year. But the DST was the target on Friday of a now familiar missive from US President Donald Trump on his Truth Social platform. There, he labeled the tax as a "direct and blatant attack" on the US and set the clock ticking on new tariffs for his northern neighbor as he put trade negotiations on ice. While DSTs from Canada and other nations avoid naming specific companies among their targets, there is an inescapable reality that such instruments catch a swathe of American companies in their nets — among them digital behemoths like Meta, Google, Amazon, Airbnb and Uber. The tax's impact was compounded by its retroactive nature, capturing all revenues back to 2022, a boon that would have yielded more than $2 billion to Canada's finances. Binning the tax on the day it came into effect has potentially prevented Canada from feeling the brunt of harsher Trump tariffs and the loss of a trade deal with a significant trading partner. At the very least, it's brought the US president back to the negotiating table. Last year, Canada bought nearly $350 billion in US products and exported more than $412 billion to the US. "Obviously, the revenue from digital services taxes will be much lower than any costs from potential trade conflicts," said Bertin Martens, a senior fellow at the Brussels-based economic think tank Bruegel. "This is the right road to take at this moment for Canada, at least." To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Big tech companies make billions in revenue globally and there are few places that haven't been touched by the presence of the dominant US players in e-commerce, digital advertising and social media. But taxation of these businesses largely falls to the country where they are headquartered. For the majors, it's usually in the US, or even low-taxing countries like Ireland or Luxembourg. It's why other countries are turning to DSTs to recoup revenue for operating within their borders. While Canada's DST has been shelved, other countries across the Atlantic have been reaping revenues for years. France, Italy, Spain and the UK have revenue taxes for digital services providers, with criteria requiring a company to meet a minimum level of global revenue, a fraction of which is made within their borders. France, Italy and Spain apply a tax of 3% on those revenues, the UK 2%. France is even looking to increase its rate to 5%. "Big US tech companies that operate in Europe and elsewhere in the world pay very little, if any, taxes in the countries where they operate and collect substantial revenue and profits," Martens told DW. "But nothing of that can be taxed in the country itself, and so, in the absence of an OECD agreement on how to do this, countries have taken this in their own hands." The US has historically taken a dim view towards foreign digital services taxes under the last three administrations, Democrat and Republican, with a view that they amount to import tariffs on services. "It's not just Preisdent Trump, it was President Biden too, it is members of the US Congress in both parties, Republican and Democrat, that agree that DSTs are not appropriate for other countries to adopt," said James Hines, a professor of law and economics at the University of Michigan, US. "A tax that really is designed just to hit hard the American tech companies, which is what DSTs are," Hines said. "I'm sure the Trump administration is very serious about being upset about DSTs, and being willing to retaliate." That leaves open the question of whether other countries will be pressured to drop theirs. "I think the EU could also be persuaded to withdraw these taxes, but the problem is that the EU Commission, as a trade negotiator, has no leverage on member states' taxation policies," said Martens. "It can try to pass the message to member states, but whether they will accept it or not is a different matter." To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video The Biden administration opposed DSTs but worked to broker a global trade deal via the OECD. That agreement was scuttled by Trump upon his return to the White House, leaving the prospect of unilateral DSTs back on the table. Despite American opposition to these agreements, Allison Christians, a tax law professor at McGill University in Canada, said the idea that major tech corporations should only be taxed in their home country is "antiquated." "They're headquartered in the US, yes, but they're capitalized all over the world, and they're collecting data all over the world, and they're making profit all over the world," Christians said. That, she said, makes it harder for local companies to compete with their "highly digitalized" US rivals. Martens agrees that DSTs are a response to the desire for other nations to have a level playing field. "There is this distorted playing field between local companies and foreign — in this case US — companies, in online markets," Martens said. "Local companies obviously pay local taxes in the country where they are established, and US companies can avoid that or circumvent that through preferential tax deals with tax havens like Ireland or Luxembourg, or even through repatriation of lots of their profits to the US. Martens said a global agreement like those brokered by the OECD would be a better way to proceed. But without US support, national-level taxes are likely to remain, at least until they appear again as a trade negotiation tool. "[DSTs] have become tangled up in this Trump administration trade policy debates, and that makes a debate even more complicated," Martens said.
Int'l Business Times
2 days ago
- Int'l Business Times
CBEX Crypto Scam: AI-hyped Ponzi Scheme Defrauds African Investors
Embarrassed and in debt, Edwin was left reeling after losing $16,000 to CryptoBridge Exchange (CBEX), one of the crypto-trading platforms preying on investors in Africa. Edwin, a Kenyan government worker who only gave his first name out of shame, first encountered CBEX on Telegram, a messaging app. He was lured with promises of guaranteed monthly returns made possible by AI-powered trading systems, with lucrative referral bonuses -- classic hallmarks of Ponzi schemes. "I had very big plans. But I was conned both by the platform and an agent who lied he could help recover my money," Edwin told AFP. When he began investing last August, there were initial returns, leading him to invest more despite lacking prior cryptocurrency trading experience. In total, he believes he lost roughly 2.1 million shillings ($16,000), mostly from a bank loan he is now worried about needing to repay. Blockchain analysis firm Chainalysis says some $9.9 billion was lost to crypto scams globally last year. Such scams are not new in Africa, but their scale and sophistication has grown as cryptocurrency spreads. CBEX collapsed in April, leaving scores of investors like Edwin ruined, mainly in Kenya and Nigeria, according to media reports. But AFP has confirmed from accessing messages on CBEX's private Telegram groups that it has since rebooted its operations despite ongoing investigations and warnings by authorities. Abby, another Kenyan investor, carries the guilt of introducing 25 family and friends to CBEX. "(They) invested so much, and it all disappeared," he told AFP. "I would really love to help them recover but I'm broke." In Nigeria, news of CBEX's collapse led to attacks on CBEX-affiliated offices, which have since closed. Adeoye, a Nigerian victim, lost N700,000 (about $450). "The offer was juicy," he said. "I knew it was a risk, but I thought I would be lucky to cash out before anything happened." CBEX used the "brandjacking" tactic, adopting an acronym similar to the China Beijing Equity Exchange to give it legitimacy. The platform claimed to be licensed in the US and said ST Technologies International was responsible for the AI trading signals, allowing it to operate in Nigeria under the corporate identity of ST Technologies International Ltd (Smart Treasure/Super Technology). It even obtained an anti-money laundering certificate from Nigeria's Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) this January, though the EFCC has clarified that this was only for "consultancy services", not for currency exchanges. To add further legitimacy, CBEX claimed it was established a decade ago and the ST team eight years ago. In reality, it began operations in Nigeria last July, according to local media, before spreading to Kenya. "If you check CBEX wallet addresses on-chain, they were only operating for about a year before the collapse," Kenyan cryptocurrency investigator Wycklife Sewe told AFP. While pretending to actively trade, CBEX actually moved funds out of investors' wallets via TRON (a decentralised blockchain network), said Sewe. The assets then underwent complex routing through multiple wallets and cryptocurrency conversions to obscure the audit trail. "They have designed their system using code to fool you that your money is still there and you can see it growing. But your money is moved immediately after you deposit," Sewe said, adding that CBEX was also running other scams. CBEX has changed its website domain several times to avoid attracting attention. AFP found at least four registered by it. In April 2024, the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission, an independent market regulator, issued a public alert against "CBEX Group". A recent investigation by crypto analyst Specter linked CBEX's withdrawal wallets to darknet marketplace Huione Guarantee, a Cambodia-based platform known for providing illicit tools to facilitate crypto crime. The US Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) designated Huione Group a "primary money-laundering concern" in May, saying that it had facilitated more than $4 billion in illegal transactions between August 2021 and January 2025. Following CBEX's collapse, Kenya's Capital Markets Authority issued an "Investor Alert" about unregulated platforms, and parliament is discussing a bill to regulate virtual assets. Nigeria's EFCC says it has arrested two people and put out warrants for eight others in Nigeria and Kenya. A new Investments and Securities Act expressly prohibits and criminalises Ponzi schemes. But investigations are lengthy and expensive. In May, the EFCC said a "reasonable sum" of lost funds had been recovered, without stating the amount, highlighting the complexity of converting cryptocurrencies back to national currency. A Telegram spokesman told AFP that "scam content is removed when discovered and offending users banned". AFP found some CBEX Telegram groups were now labelled as scams on the platform. On June 10, CBEX, which had previously blamed hackers for the missing funds, claimed on its Telegram channels to have "compensated" the lost money. But it asked affected users to complete "verification" by paying a fee -- a common re-scamming tactic. For victims like Abby, the way forward is easy. "Never, ever again! I am done," he said.
DW
3 days ago
- DW
Canada ended its digital tax for Trump. Could others follow? – DW – 06/30/2025
Canada has withdrawn a tax that could have reaped billions in revenue to bring Donald Trump back to the table. It raises the possibility that other taxes targeting big tech could be in the US president's sights next. Canada has cancelled its digital services tax (DST) to entice the United States to return to the negotiating table for a long-awaited trade and defense deal. The tax, which was due to take effect on Monday, would have applied a 3% levy on revenues earned within Canada by companies — from any country — whose services are digitally based and earn more than $20 million CAD (€12.4 million) a year. But the DST was the target on Friday of a now familiar missive from US President Donald Trump on his Truth Social platform. There, he labelled the tax as a "direct and blatant attack" on the US and set the clock ticking on new tariffs for his northern neighbor as he put trade negotiations on ice. While DSTs from Canada and other nations avoid naming specific companies among their targets, there is an inescapable reality that such instruments catch a swathe of American companies in their nets — among them digital behemoths like Meta, Google, Amazon, Airbnb and Uber. Compounding the tax's impact was its retroactive nature, capturing all revenues back to 2022 in a boon that would have yielded more than $2 billion to Canada's finances. Binning the tax on the day it came into effect has potentially avoided Canada feeling the brunt of harsher Trump tariffs and the loss of a trade deal with a major trading partner. At the very least, it's brought the US president back to the negotiating table. Last year Canada bought nearly $350 billion in US products and exported more than $412 billion to the US. "Obviously the revenue from digital services taxes will be much lower than any costs from potential trade conflicts," said Bertin Martens, a senior fellow at the Brussels-based economic think tank Bruegel. "This is the right road to take at this moment for Canada, at least." To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Big tech companies make billions in revenue globally and there are few places that haven't been touched by the presence of the dominant US players in e-commerce, digital advertising and social media. But taxation of these businesses largely falls to the country where they are headquartered. For the majors, it's usually in the US, or even low-taxing countries like Ireland or Luxembourg. It's why other countries are turning to DSTs to recoup revenue for operating within their borders. While Canada's DST has been shelved, other countries across the Atlantic have been reaping revenues for years. France, Italy, Spain and the UK have revenue taxes for digital services providers, with criteria requiring a company to meet a minimum level of global revenue, a fraction of which is made within their borders. France, Italy and Spain apply a tax of 3% on those revenues, the UK 2%. France is even looking to increase its rate to 5%. "Big US tech companies that operate in Europe and elsewhere in the world pay very little, if any, taxes in the countries where they operate and collect substantial revenue and profits," Martens told DW. "But nothing of that can be taxed in the country itself, and so, in the absence of an OECD agreement on how to do this, countries have taken this in their own hands." The US has historically taken a dim view towards foreign digital services taxes under the last three administrations — Democrat and Republican — with a view that they amount to import tariffs on services. "It's not just Preisdent Trump, it was President Biden too, it is members of the US Congress in both parties, Republican and Democrat, that agree that DSTs are not appropriate for other countries to adopt," said James Hines, a professor of law and economics at the University of Michigan, US. "A tax that really is designed just to hit hard the American tech companies, which is what DSTs are," Hines said. "I'm sure the Trump administration is very serious about being upset about DSTs, and being willing to retaliate." That leaves open the question of whether other countries will be pressured to drop theirs. "I think the EU could also be persuaded to withdraw these taxes, but the problem is that the EU Commission, as a trade negotiator, has no leverage on member states' taxation policies," said Martens. "It can try to pass the message to member states, but whether they will accept it or not is a different matter." To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video The Biden administration opposed DSTs but worked to broker a global trade deal via the OECD. That agreement was scuttled by Trump upon his return to the White House, leaving the prospect of unilateral DSTs back on the table. Despite American opposition to these agreements, Allison Christians, a tax law professor at McGill University in Canada, said the idea that major tech corporations should only be taxed in their home country is "antiquated." "They're headquartered in the US, yes, but they're capitalized all over the world, and they're collecting data all over the world, and they're making profit all over the world," Christians said. That, she said, makes it harder for local companies to compete with their "highly digitalized" US rivals. Martens agrees that DSTs are a response to the desire for other nations to have a level playing field. "There is this distorted playing field between local companies and foreign — in this case US — companies, in online markets," Martens said. "Local companies obviously pay local taxes in the country where they are established, and US companies can avoid that or circumvent that through preferential tax deals with tax havens like Ireland or Luxembourg, or even through repatriation of lots of their profits to the US. Martens said a global agreement like those brokered by the OECD would be a better way to proceed. But without US support, national-level taxes are likely to remain, at least until they appear again as a trade negotiation tool. "[DSTs] have become tangled up in this Trump administration trade policy debates, and that makes a debate even more complicated," Martens said.
