South African Regulator Probes Meta Over Election Transparency Dispute

The South African regulator has launched an investigation into Meta after a dispute arose over the company’s refusal to provide information related to election transparency.

On April 3, 2024, the Centre for Freedom of Expression (CFE) submitted a request asking Meta to disclose details about potential threats identified during the recent election, the data collected, and the measures taken to counter misinformation across its platforms. This request was aimed at ensuring transparency and evaluating whether Meta effectively managed election-related risks.

However, on April 17, 2024, Meta declined the request, asserting that, as a U.S.-based company, it is not bound by South African law, including the Promotion of Access to Information Act (Paia). In a letter from its legal representatives, Bowmans, Meta stated, “Meta Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware in the United States of America and does not have a legal presence in South Africa. Accordingly, Meta Inc. is not subject to Paia.”

CFE subsequently filed a complaint with the Information Regulator, challenging Meta’s refusal to provide the requested information. Anton Harber, Executive Director of CFE, criticized Meta’s reasoning as “devoid of any legal merit,” arguing that the company’s stance undermines the constitutional rights of South African citizens. Harber emphasized that foreign entities like Meta should not be permitted to disregard South African laws, particularly when their services are extensively used within the country.

Although Meta declined to comply with the Paia request, the company did make some public disclosures regarding the election. However, CFE criticized these disclosures, arguing that they were insufficient and left “serious gaps” in the information provided.

CFE identified three critical areas where Meta’s disclosures were lacking: the company’s risk assessment and mitigation plans, its strategies for protecting journalists from online harassment, and its methods for monitoring its platform’s performance during the election. According to CFE, full transparency in these areas is crucial for maintaining public trust and accountability, especially given the widespread use of Meta’s platforms in South Africa.

The Information Regulator is now tasked with determining whether Meta’s refusal to disclose the requested information violates South African law and whether the company can be compelled to release the records. The regulator has not yet issued a formal statement on the case, but its decision could have significant implications for Meta and its operations in the region.