Nigeria’s FCCPC Launches Digital Markets Probe: Key Considerations for Global Tech and AI General Counsels

Nigeria recently launched a digital markets inquiry with a focus on dominant digital platforms like global technology platforms and Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI). The decision was reportedly instigated by a petition from the NPO, an association of major Nigerian media bodies which reportedly includes the Newspaper Proprietors' Association of Nigeria (NPAN), the Nigerian Guild of Editors (NGE), the Nigeria Union of Journalists (NUJ), the Broadcasting Organisations of Nigeria (BON), and the Guild of Corporate Online Publishers (GOCOP).

The objective of the inquiry is to investigate alleged anti-competitive conduct, unauthorized web scraping and utilization of copyrighted journalistic content for AI model training, abuse of market dominance, and the systemic denial of fair commercial compensation to local media organizations under the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act (FCCPA) 2018.

Key Considerations for Digital Platforms

1. Administrative Fairness and Constitutional Fair Hearing Rights

Platforms should anticipate formal requests and invitations to make written and oral representations, making early structured engagement vital. Nigerian administrative law strictly mandates that statutory regulatory bodies adhere to fundamental principles of natural justice and procedural fairness when exercising investigative powers. Under Section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999, as amended), any administrative determination affecting civil rights or obligations must observe the right to a fair hearing. While the FCCPC possesses broad statutory authority to initiate inquiries, this power is legally constrained by procedural due process. 

2. Engaging Local Counsel Early

Navigating regulatory proceedings before Nigerian state agencies requires contextual legal expertise that demonstrates an understanding of the industry and the issues. Early local representation ensures submissions do not inadvertently concede market power or waive procedural safeguards.

3. Evaluating the Scope of Information Requests Against Statutory Limits

The FCCPC holds extensive powers to summon executives and demand information. However, these powers are not unrestricted. It is often useful to rigorously scrutinize any formal Request for Information (RFI) to ensure it remains within the statutory jurisdiction of the Commission, avoids overbroad fishing expeditions targeting proprietary global architectures or trade secrets, and respects statutory protections for confidential commercial information.

4. Spectrum of Administrative Penalties and Enforcement Remedies

The FCCPC is one of Nigeria's most robustly empowered regulatory bodies. Should the Commission make an adverse finding at the conclusion of the inquiry, potential enforcement outcomes include:

i. Administrative Monetary Fines: Penalties reaching up to 10% of global annual turnover for corporate entities under Section 155 of the FCCPA and subsidiary penalty regulations.

ii. Cease-and-Desist Orders: Directives commanding the immediate halt of specific content-scraping practices or AI training ingestion workflows.

iii. Mandatory Behavioral Remedies: Orders requiring platforms to establish commercial licensing agreements or formal revenue-sharing mechanisms with local publishers.

iv. Operational Restrictions: Severe structural measures or compliance directives in instances of non-cooperation.

v. Relevant Market Definition as a Jurisdictional Catalyst

Market definition forms the core legal anchor of any competition investigation. Under the FCCPC Act, establishing anti-competitive conduct or market abuse requires a precise and legally sound definition of the relevant product and geographic markets. It is often prudent for Platforms to actively contribute economic and technical data to prevent regulators from applying oversimplified classifications that mischaracterize a multi-sided global AI or digital ecosystem as a localized monopoly.

Vi. Scope of Potential Infractions Under the FCCPC 2018

The FCCPC Act provides for a range of statutory heads of infraction. These include:

(a) Abuse of Dominant Position: The FCCPC will interrogate whether dominant players  impose unfair trading terms, refusing access to essential digital infrastructure, or applying dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions.

(b) Anti-Competitive Agreements and Restrictive Practices: The FCCPC will interrogate the existence and propriety of concerted arrangements or operational terms that artificially restrict or distort competition within the domestic market.

(c) Unconscionable Conduct and Exploitative Practices: The FCCPC will Interrogate the extent to which platforms leverage superior market positions to extract disproportionate economic value from content creators without equitable compensation.

Key Takeaways

The most likely outcome and worst case scenario is a multi-million-dollar regulatory fine. A response strategy that starts from this assumption, seeing the risk clearly from the outset, should shape their legal strategy from day one. Rather than treating the probe as a routine administrative inquiry, global tech firms must align their defense, evidence gathering, and regulatory engagement around mitigating high-stakes financial and operational exposure before a final order is issued.