International rights group Amnesty International has praised the decision by Kenya’s High Court affirming its jurisdiction to hear a case against Meta, the parent company of Facebook, for its alleged role in fueling “identity-based attacks and killings” during the two-year war in Tigray.

The lawsuit, demanding $2.4 billion in compensation for victims of hate speech and violent incitement allegedly spread through Facebook, was filed by Ethiopian nationals Abraham Meareg and Fisha Tekle, alongside the Katiba Institute, a constitutional research organization based in Kenya.

The petitioners accused Meta of promoting harmful content, claiming that the platform’s algorithms prioritized inflammatory, hateful, and dangerous materials. They argued that this contributed to significant human rights violations during the war.

Abraham Meareg told The Guardian newspaper that his father, Meareg Amare, a professor at Bahir Dar University, was killed in November 2021 after provocative articles targeting his identity were disseminated on Facebook. “I am grateful for the court’s decision today,” said Mr. Abraham Meareg. He added, “It is disgraceful that Meta would argue that they should not be subject to the rule of law in Kenya. African lives matter.”

Fisha Tekle, a former Amnesty International researcher, revealed that he was subjected to hatred due to his human rights advocacy in Ethiopia. As reported by Addis Standard, he stated, “Meta cannot undo the damage it has done, but the company can radically change how it moderates dangerous content across all its platforms to make sure no one else has to go through what I have.”

The court’s decision was heavily influenced by an earlier Amnesty International report, which highlighted Meta’s failure to address “degrading and defamatory content” during the war. The institute accused Meta of ignoring repeated warnings from local civil society organizations.

Among the cases cited by Amnesty was the tragic killing of Professor Meareg, whose personal information, including his name, workplace, and home address, was allegedly circulated online prior to his death. Another case involved a woman who lost her father and brother due to hate speech and violence spread on Facebook, later sharing her harrowing experience with The Addis Standard newspaper.

The court concluded that it has jurisdiction over the case, as it required determining whether constitutional rights had been violated and interpreting the constitution. The ruling invoked Article 165 of the Kenyan Constitution, which mandates that cases raising “substantial questions of law” be reviewed by a panel of judges. The matter has been referred to Kenya’s Chief Justice for the appointment of judges.

Following the ruling, the Head of Strategic Litigation at Amnesty International, Mandi Mudarikwa, described it as a “positive step” that “paves the way for justice” and signals the end of the “era of impunity” for major tech companies. She noted that victims of corporate human rights abuses often struggle to obtain justice due to companies like Meta invoking their terms of service to restrict legal recourse.

Ms. Mudarikwa emphasized, “This ruling offers hope that marginalized groups can access justice no matter where they are in the world. The idea of viewing countries outside the U.S. and Europe as mere markets for profits without accountability must be challenged.”

Meta, however, has contested the Kenyan court’s authority, arguing that claims against the company should be adjudicated exclusively in U.S. courts. Meta’s legal representatives have applied for leave to appeal and continue efforts to dismiss the case.

The lawsuit has garnered support from numerous human rights organizations, including Amnesty International, Global Witness, Article 19, the Kenya Human Rights Commission, and the National Peace and Integration Commission. These groups have joined the case as interested parties, asserting that Facebook’s algorithms promoted harmful content, leading to violations of fundamental rights.