| Authority: | Federal High Court of Nigeria |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction: | Nigeria |
| Relevant law: | Section 37 of the Nigerian Constitution |
| Type: | Violation |
| Outcome: | No Violation |
| Started: | 21 November, 2019 |
| Decided: | 19 April 2023 |
| Published: | 19 April 2023 |
| Fine: | N/A |
| Parties: | 1. ****Olumide Babalola LP 2. Olasunkami Bello (Representing themselves and all their Nigerian members whose personal data are collected and processed by the True Caller Software in Nigeria) vs. 1. True Software Scandinavia AB 2. Natonal Information Technology Agency. |
| Case No./Parties: | FHC/ABJ/CS/1432/2019 |
| Appeal: | N/A |
| Original Source: | Federal High Court of Nigeria |
| Original contributor: | MZIZI Africa |
The Federal High Court of Nigeria dismissed a privacy lawsuit, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to prove any breach of privacy rights by TrueCaller. The Court held that TrueCaller’s is a processor and its operation, which relies on users’ consent to access their contacts, falls within legal boundaries.
The case involving a lawsuit filed by Olumide Babalola LP and Olasunkami Bello (the “Applicant”) against True Software Scandinavia (”Truecaller” or the “Respondent”) and the National Information Technology Development Agency.
The 1st Applicant claims to be a Data Protection Compliance Organisation in Nigeria.
The Applicants claim that the 1st Respondent collects and processes telephone numbers of users and non-users around the world and makes them available to users of their software.
The Applicants believe their exposure and the exposure of other non-users to third parties without their consent has caused and will likely cause interference with their telephone conversations.
The Applicants claim to have received calls from unknown persons who got their number from the phone contact list of the 1st Respondent's software, which they believe is an invasion of their privacy.
The 1st Respondent denied harvesting the phone numbers of Nigerians and stated that it does not have access to the contact list of users of the app.
The 1st Respondent claims it is not in charge of True Caller in Nigeria, but that it is the responsibility of Truecaller International LLP, India.
The 1st Respondent stated that the users of the app gave True Caller app permission to their phone contact list.
The 1st Respondent explained that the consent of the app user is possibly contained in that consent, and thus the 1st Respondent cannot be held responsible for having the phone number of the Applicants in its database.
The 1st Respondent also argued that a manual search of a person's name on the Truecaller application will not reveal the phone number of such person. That the application is for people to verify the identity of an unknown number which called them.
The 1st Respondent argued that the data controllers (the persons who downloaded the Truecaller application) are the ones who saved phone numbers on their contact list and are the data controllers in accordance with the Regulations.