The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project has formally urged Nigeria’s competition regulator to investigate eight of the world’s most powerful technology companies over allegations that their algorithmic systems, data practices, and market dominance are systematically harming Nigerian media organisations, businesses, consumers, and democratic institutions.
In a complaint dated 28 February 2026 and signed by SERAP’s deputy director, Kolawole Oluwadare, the rights organisation urged the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission to urgently investigate Google, Meta (Facebook), Apple, Microsoft (Bing), X (formerly Twitter), TikTok, Amazon, and YouTube. SERAP addressed the complaint directly to the FCCPC’s Executive Vice Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Tunji Bello.
The complaint described the named companies as “private gatekeepers of Nigeria’s information and business ecosystem,” arguing that their “opaque algorithms and market dominance are not just economic issues — they are human rights issues that threaten media plurality, consumer protection, and privacy, and the integrity of Nigeria’s democracy.”
SERAP further urged the Commission to convene a public hearing into allegations of algorithmic discrimination, market dominance, data exploitation, and consumer harm involving all eight companies, and to take measures necessary to prevent further unfair market practices, algorithmic influence, consumer harm, and abuses of media freedom, freedom of expression, privacy, and access to information.
At the heart of SERAP’s complaint is the argument that big technology companies operate with enormous influence over Nigeria’s digital economy and information ecosystem, yet consistently escape accountability for the harms they cause. The organisation stated that “opaque algorithms, offshore revenue extraction, and hidden data practices allow these platforms to shape public discourse and market competition without transparency or meaningful oversight.”
Millions of Nigerians, the complaint noted, rely on these platforms daily for news, information, and business opportunities, making regulatory inaction a matter of serious public interest rather than a narrow commercial dispute.
SERAP raised particular concern about large-scale collection, retention, and monetisation of Nigerians’ personal and behavioural data, which it said is “often under complex and unclear consent mechanisms” and is reportedly interfering with the right to privacy. The organisation also warned that algorithmic opacity and data-driven micro-targeting could affect the fairness of Nigeria’s forthcoming elections by influencing voter exposure to information without adequate transparency safeguards.
The complaint cited the cumulative effect of these practices, specifically data concentration, opaque content moderation, discriminatory algorithmic ranking, and market dominance, as conduct that would “substantially prevent or distort competition, harm consumers, and weaken Nigeria’s democratic institutions.”
The complaint gave particular weight to the effect of big tech conduct on Nigerian journalism and media sustainability. SERAP said Nigerian media companies and content creators continue to face algorithmic suppression, revenue diversion to foreign platforms, and limited discoverability, “effectively resulting in abuses of freedom of expression, access to information and media freedom in Nigeria.”
Citing positions attributed to the Nigerian Press Organisation, SERAP noted that the NPO had raised concerns about how control of the information ecosystem by these technology companies has “fundamentally altered Nigeria’s information environment.” The NPO further alleged that the activities of the tech companies have “created a structural imbalance of power that now threatens the sustainability of professional journalism — the backbone of informed citizenship and accountable governance.”
According to the complaint, the NPO alleged that algorithms controlled outside Nigeria determine what Nigerians see, amplify, or ignore; that Nigerian news content is monetised at scale without proportionate reinvestment in local journalism; and that revenue that once sustained domestic newsrooms is increasingly extracted offshore.
SERAP also stated that big tech companies are alleged to have engaged in conduct that prioritises foreign content over Nigerian media in search results and news feeds, limits the discoverability of Nigerian websites and news platforms, and fails to provide transparency regarding ranking and recommendation algorithms. The organisation added that such activities have caused demonstrable harm to the commercial and reputational interests of Nigerian media companies, resulting in reduced advertising revenues and restricted consumer choice.
“The decline in revenues for Nigerian media organisations has seen newsrooms shrink, bureaus shut, and a number of print titles close, creating news deserts and negatively impacting the ability of the news media to fulfil its societal and constitutional role,” the complaint read.
SERAP anchored its complaint in specific provisions of Nigerian law and international human rights standards. It argued that the allegations against the named companies, if established, would amount to grave violations of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act, particularly Sections 17(e) and 18, as well as the provisions of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution as amended, and applicable international human rights instruments.
The organisation further argued that the alleged conduct would constitute discriminatory treatment and abuse of market dominance contrary to Sections 17 and 18 of the FCCPA, and stressed that the FCCPC has clear jurisdiction under Sections 17(b)(e) and 18 of the same Act to investigate, monitor, and enforce compliance against conduct that substantially prevents, restricts, or distorts competition in Nigeria.
To reinforce this position, SERAP pointed to a precedent from the Federal High Court, which it noted has upheld the FCCPC’s investigations into telecom pricing and competition conduct, thereby confirming the Commission’s mandate under those sections. Media freedom, the organisation also noted, is expressly guaranteed under Sections 22 and 39 of the Nigerian Constitution and under Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
“The media is thus fundamental to Nigeria’s democracy, serving as both a catalyst for civic engagement and a mechanism for holding power to account,” SERAP stated in the complaint.
In pressing the case for urgent action, SERAP pointed to investigations by the South African Competition Commission into Google, which it said “revealed systematic bias against local media content, leading to remedies including algorithmic transparency, compliance monitoring, and monetary redress.” SERAP urged the FCCPC to take similar action to protect Nigerian media, businesses, and citizens’ rights.
The organisation made clear that inaction by the regulator would not go unchallenged. “Should the FCCPC fail to act promptly, SERAP will consider all appropriate legal actions to compel regulatory intervention in the public interest,” the complaint warned, adding that the organisation is available to provide evidence, expert analysis, and recommendations to assist the Commission’s inquiry.
In its request for a public hearing, SERAP argued that such a forum “would allow affected Nigerians to provide firsthand testimony, documentary evidence, data analytics, and expert opinions” to assist the FCCPC in determining whether the alleged practices substantially prevent or distort competition, harm consumers, or undermine constitutional rights. The organisation further stated that a public hearing would strengthen the evidentiary basis of the FCCPC’s inquiry while promoting “public trust, democratic accountability, and regulatory transparency in matters affecting millions of Nigerians.”
Beyond the immediate calls for investigation and public hearing, SERAP laid out a detailed set of relief requests in the complaint. These include: mandating transparency and equitable treatment of Nigerian content through disclosure of ranking, recommendation, and advertising algorithms, with quarterly and biannual compliance reporting; ensuring remedial measures for harmed media organisations, including the establishment of a compensation fund; taking urgent steps to prevent ongoing consumer harm, market distortion, and violations of privacy and freedom of expression; summoning persons and requiring production of documents; applying sanctions against the named companies where violations are found; and ensuring that the FCCPC retains authority to request additional data as necessary.
SERAP also asked the Commission to grant any additional relief it considers necessary to prevent unfair market practices and ensure full compliance with Nigerian competition law.
In light of what it described as the potential impact on privacy rights, media freedom, business sustainability, and the integrity of Nigeria’s forthcoming elections, SERAP urged the FCCPC to “treat this matter with urgency and to provide a clear timeline for investigative steps, including stakeholder consultations and public engagement.”
The SERAP complaint arrives at a moment when the global conversation around the accountability of dominant digital platforms has intensified considerably. Across Europe, North America, and parts of Africa, regulators have moved from policy discussions to enforcement action against companies whose data practices, advertising dominance, and algorithmic influence have long been subjects of public and parliamentary concern.
In Nigeria, the stakes carry a particular dimension tied to the country’s media landscape. Nigeria has one of the most active press traditions in sub-Saharan Africa, with hundreds of print, broadcast, and digital news organisations operating across the country. However, the rapid migration of advertising revenue to digital platforms, chiefly Google and Meta, which together command a dominant share of global and Nigerian digital advertising spend, has fundamentally changed the economics of journalism. Nigerian newsrooms that once depended on advertising to fund investigative reporting, editorial staff, and distribution infrastructure have watched those revenues dry up over the course of the past decade, with no structural mechanism compelling the platforms responsible for the shift to reinvest proportionately in the local information economy.
The FCCPA, under which SERAP has filed its complaint, came into force in 2019 when it replaced the Consumer Protection Council Act. The law established the FCCPC as a modern regulatory body with wide-ranging powers to investigate anti-competitive conduct, protect consumer rights, and sanction market abuses. Since its establishment, the Commission has engaged in several notable regulatory actions, including investigations into the telecommunications sector and public confrontations with major international companies over pricing and consumer practices. Whether those precedents will translate into the kind of sustained digital platform investigation that SERAP is now demanding remains to be seen.
At the time of publication, the FCCPC had not issued a public response to the SERAP complaint.
