- By Solomon Oloruntoba
It was with mixed feelings that I received the recent report of a heavy fine imposed on Amazon over a business practice infraction. After a two-year legal tango, the American online shopping giant was ordered by a U.S. court to pay a historic $2.5 billion settlement with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
Amazon was accused in 2023 of tricking consumers into signing up for its Prime subscription service and then made it hard to cancel.
It was established that Amazon used sophisticated subscription traps designed to manipulate consumers into enrolling in Prime, and then made it exceedingly hard for consumers to end their subscription.
For this, Amazon is required to pay a $1 billion civil penalty and provide another $1.5 billion in refunds to an estimated 35 million customers that were “harmed by their deceptive Prime enrolment practices”.
Not only did Amazon obey, it quickly unveiled remedial steps it was taking to be compliant with FTC rules. These include “clear and conspicuous disclosures” about the terms of Prime during enrolment process and the “easy ways” to cancel the programme.
Read Also: Court fixes October 27 for Sowore’s arraignment over alleged cybercrime
For me, what is quite striking is the willingness shown by Amazon to obey the judgement and make restitution without any drama. Its response is consistent with the usual practice of corporates in the U.S. which clearly demonstrates a submission to the rule of law. This is unlike what happens elsewhere, particularly in Africa where these big corporate players behave like outlaws and often resort to all manner of dirty tactics to either stall or compromise judicial process in their respective country of operation. Sadly, they often engage indigenous lawyers without any form of patriotism to undermine their own fatherland.
The example of Amazon only reminds of the contrast of Meta found guilty of corporate atrocities in a place like Nigeria. With its footprints and fingerprints in many courts across the world, Meta can, in fact, rightly be described today as a serial international offender, often motivated by a carnal desire to maximise profit at the expense of the law.
Only in April here in Nigeria, many will recall that Meta was found guilty of heinous breaches including trading with the personal data of millions of unsuspecting Nigerians who use their platforms — Facebook and WhatsApp. The case was brought against them by Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC), Nigeria’s equivalent of U.S. FTC.
The fine imposed on Meta in April by the Nigerian tribunal was $220m, with June set as deadline for payment to the federal government.
Earlier in 2024, FCCPC had imposed the fine after due forensic investigation. But typically, Meta thumbed its nose in contempt. It filed an appeal at the tribunal. It took a whole year for the tribunal to review FCCPC’ argument and Meta’s defence before upholding the former.
But no sooner had the judgement been delivered than Meta arrogantly threatened to quit Nigeria, as if it was doing its Nigerian clients a favour. Of course, everyone knew it was all a bluff of a corporate Shylock caught pants down. Apparently realising how futile that was, Meta later resorted to the usual tactic to stall the wheel of justice: file a notice of appeal. Sadly, six months later, we have not heard anything about the case again.
But this is not how Meta behaves back home in America. In 2024, it was fined $1.4b in Texas for the same offence it was asked to pay a “chicken feed” of $220m in Nigeria by FCCPC. The Texas court established that Meta had unlawfully collected and used facial recognition data from millions of Texans without their consent, violating the state’s Capture or Use of Biometric Identifier Act (CUBI).
Elsewhere in Europe, it was also asked to pay $1.3 billion for violating E.U. Data Privacy Rules. In India, South Korea, France and Australia, Meta had faced varying penalties for similar breaches.
But note: wherever it was founded guilty of market abuse outside Africa, Meta promptly obeyed the order to make restitution. It never resorted to the cheap blackmail of threatening to exit those countries.
It is the reason I believe every patriotic and proud Nigerian should be outraged by this seeming apartheid policy by Meta. In the 70s, 80s and early 90s, Nigerians didn’t take kindly with the Apartheid policy in South Africa. No justification, therefore, to stomach a similar insult by Meta. Good enough, there are viable alternatives now promoted by the Chinese. If Meta is not ready to play by the rules set by regulatory authorities in Nigeria like they do in other jurisdictions, they should pack their bags and go where their shenanigans will be tolerated.
•Oloruntoba, a public affairs analyst, writes from Lagos.
