A Kenyan court recently ruled that it has jurisdiction over cases related to harmful social media content, allowing individuals to seek justice for damages. The case was initiated by individuals affected by violent and hateful content on Facebook, emphasizing the role of Meta's algorithms and moderation decisions. The lawsuit argues that such content, which includes hate speech and incitement to violence, is outside constitutional protections. The ruling signifies a potential shift in accountability for social media platforms, focusing on their responsibility to uphold human rights in their operations.
In April 2025, the Human Rights Court in Kenya issued an unprecedented ruling that it has the jurisdiction to hear a case about harmful content on one of Meta's platforms.
The lawsuit was filed in 2022 by Abraham Meareg, the son of an Ethiopian academic who was murdered after he was doxxed and threatened on Facebook, and Fisseha Tekle, an Ethiopian human rights activist.
Key to the Kenyan case is the question whether Meta, a US-based corporation, can financially benefit from unconstitutional content and whether there is a positive duty on the corporation to take down such content.
The Kenyan decision signals a paradigm shift towards platform liability where judges determine liability by solely asking the question: Do platform decisions observe and uphold human rights?
Collection
[
|
...
]