FCCPC can regulate business conduct in digital, electronic, online and non-traditional consumer-lending activities
WIRELESS APPLICATION SERVICE PROVIDERS ASSOCIATION OF NIGERIA LTD/GTE v. FEDERAL COMPETITION AND CONSUMER PROTECTION COMMISSION
FEDERAL HIGH COURT (LAGOS DIVISION)
(LEWIS-ALLAGOA, J)
FACTS
Wireless Application Service Providers Association of Nigeria Ltd/Gte (“the Plaintiff”) is an incorporated association representing wireless application and value-added service providers in the Nigerian telecommunications and digital-services sector. Its members operate within a sector whose primary regulator is the Nigerian Communications Commission (“the NCC”) under the enabling Act. The dispute arose because the Plaintiff considered that the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (“the Defendant”) had, by the Digital, Electronic, Online or Non-Traditional Consumer Lending Regulations, 2025, “DEON Regulations”, had entered a field already occupied by the NCC and had imposed obligations affecting operators who provided digital and value-added services.
The Defendant made the DEON Regulations pursuant to its power under the FCCPA. The Regulations were introduced against the backdrop of established abuses in the digital consumer-lending market, including hidden and excessive charges, the use of borrowers’ personal data without consent, oppressive and intrusive debt-recovery practices, and exclusionary arrangements within the airtime and data lending chain. The Regulations were therefore intended to address both consumer-protection concerns and competition concerns arising from digital lending services.
The Plaintiff commenced buy its Originating Summons, sought the determination of questions concerning the scope of the Commission’s powers under the FCCPA, the validity of the DEON Regulations, the relationship between the Commission’s regulatory authority and the powers of the NCC and the effect of the impugned provisions on its members. The Plaintiff also sought declaratory and injunctive reliefs, including orders striking down the challenged provisions of the Regulations and restraining their enforcement against its members.
The Plaintiff obtained interim orders restraining the Defendant from enforcing the Regulations pending the hearing of the motion on notice. The Defendant, who did not take any further steps in enforcing the Regulation, filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection challenging the competence of the suit, and also sought positive reliefs affirming its statutory powers under the FCCPA.
One of the issues raised for determination was: Whether the impugned paragraphs of the DEON Regulations, in both their consumer-protection and competition aspects, were intra vires and constitutionally valid, or ultra vires, in conflict with the Nigerian Communications Act, 2003, or inconsistent with sections 4 and 40 of the Constitution.
ARGUMENTS
Learned Senior counsel for the Plaintiff argued that the Commission’s power under the FCCPA was limited to matters concerning the prevention of anti-competitive practices and the protection of consumer interests. Counsel submitted that the DEON Regulations travelled beyond those limits because they imposed registration, approval and other preconditions on persons providing digital-lending services.
Senior counsel also argued that the requirements expected for the Plaintiff to fulfil under the DEON Regulations were not merely consumer-protection measures but amounted to a licensing framework for digital-lending operators. He maintained that the FCCPA did not confer telecommunications licensing powers on the Commission, and that the power to regulate operators in the telecommunications and value-added services sector remained with the NCC.
In response, learned Senior counsel for the Defendant contended that the FCCPA conferred a broad rule-making power on the Commission to make regulations, guidelines and notices necessary for the effective implementation and operation of the Act. Counsel submitted that the FCCPA expressly extended to both consumer-protection and competition matters, including restrictive agreements, abuse of dominant position, monopoly investigations, mergers and market definition. He argued that the DEON Regulations were not directed at granting licences for telecommunications services, but at regulating the conduct of undertakings engaged in consumer lending and at preventing arrangements capable of distorting competition or harming consumers.
Senior counsel argued that the FCCPA established concurrent jurisdiction between the Commission and sector regulators in matters relating to competition and consumer protection. He finally submitted that the existence of the NCC as a sector regulator therefore did not exclude the Commission from acting where the conduct complained of concerned unfair consumer practices, anti-competitive arrangements, abusive dominance or market foreclosure within the digital-lending value chain. The Defendant further submitted that the Regulations were a response to specific market abuses in digital lending and were designed to ensure fair disclosure, responsible conduct, protection of consumer data and the prevention of exclusionary practices in consumer-lending arrangements.
DECISION OF THE COURT
In resolving the issue, the Federal High Court held that:
The Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission is empowered to make regulations and regulate conduct in the digital, electronic, online and non-traditional consumer-lending market in matters relating to both the prevention of anti-competitive practices and the protection of consumers, such as the DEON Regulations.
The Court reasoned that the DEON Regulations concerned the conduct of operators within the digital consumer-lending market, rather than the technical regulation of telecommunications services. Matters addressed by the Regulations, including consumer charges, transparency of lending terms, use of consumers’ data, debt-recovery practices, registration of consumer-lending service providers, and approval of partnerships or arrangements capable of restricting competition, fell within the Commission’s statutory mandate as they are meant to tackle concerns arising from information asymmetry, opaque fees, excessive charges and intrusive recovery practices, which the FCCPA was enacted to address.
The Court further that the FCCPC’s precedence in competition and consumer-protection matters co-exists with, and does not displace, the NCC’s sectoral functions, since the Regulations preserved the requirement for any relevant NCC licence or approval.
Accordingly, the Federal High Court upheld the validity of the DEON Regulations and affirmed the Commission’s competence to regulate the digital, electronic, online and non-traditional consumer-lending market in respect of both competition and consumer-protection matters.
Issue resolved in favour of the Defendant.
Kemi Pinheiro, SAN with Chukwudi Enebeli, SAN with Muyiwa Odubele, and Pelumi Agbeyo – for the Plaintiff
Olufunke Aboyade, SAN with A. Aribisala, V. Alexander and I. M. Balogun – for the Defendant/Respondent.
This summary is fully reported at (2026) 8 CLRN in association with ALP NG & Co.
See www.clrndirect.com ; www.alp.company.