The Framework

The National Information Technology Development Agency (NITDA) Code of Practice, developed with the Nigerian Communications Commission and National Broadcasting Commission, requires platforms with over 100,000 Nigerian users to incorporate locally, maintain physical offices in Nigeria, appoint liaison officers, and pay local taxes.[1] The regulation mandates platforms remove content within 24 hours of receiving notice from any “Authorized Government Agency” without requiring the agency to specify how content violates Nigerian law, providing no opportunity for platforms to verify claims or appeal decisions.^[2] Platforms must also disclose user identities upon court order and provide “human supervision to review and improve the use of automated tools,” requiring additional staffing and operational infrastructure.^[3] Noncompliance constitutes a breach of the NITDA Act of 2007, exposing platforms to undefined sanctions including potential blocking orders.^[4]

Implications for U.S. Technology Leadership

The Code’s threshold-based requirements specifically target U.S. platforms that have achieved scale in Nigeria’s digital market, forcing Meta, Google, Twitter, and other American companies to establish expensive local operations while smaller competitors remain unaffected. These mandates divert significant resources from global innovation efforts to compliance infrastructure, as U.S. firms must hire local staff, establish physical offices, navigate Nigeria’s complex tax system, and build content moderation systems specifically for the Nigerian market.^[5] The 24-hour takedown requirement without clear legal standards creates particular risks for U.S. platforms, which must either over-censor to avoid sanctions or face potential blocking, while the requirement to disclose user data weakens privacy protections that constitute a key competitive advantage for American technology companies.

The proliferation of stringent content moderation requirements across multiple jurisdictions fundamentally weakens American technology companies by forcing them to dedicate ever-increasing resources to compliance rather than innovation. Each new regulatory regime like Nigeria’s requires U.S. platforms to hire local staff, build custom moderation systems, and navigate ambiguous enforcement standards, creating cumulative burdens that drain resources from research and development.^[6] As more countries impose their own versions of content controls with varying standards and timelines, U.S. technology leaders must manage an increasingly complex patchwork of regulations that undermine their ability to compete on technological advancement and product quality.

Endnotes