By Nana Karikari, Senior International Affairs and Political Analyst
Social media behemoth Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, and
WhatsApp, faces a wave of legal challenges across Africa for the alleged mental health
impact on its content moderators. The moderators are reportedly tasked with the
distressing job of reviewing and removing graphic content, including violence, murder,
and child sexual abuse.
As corroborated by some of its former employees, these lawsuits have ignited fierce
debate on the ethical obligations of global technology corporations toward their African
workers and the underlying difficulties in ensuring platform safety.
These cases are not just about money; they’re a sobering reminder that keeping these
platforms “safe” for consumers comes at a real human cost. It makes you wonder, what
exactly do these tech giants, raking in billions, owe to the people who are doing this
destructive work on the continent.
Ghana Joins Ongoing Legal Actions
This fundamental question of responsibility has moved beyond private concerns. It is
increasingly erupting inside courtrooms across the continent. Highlighting the expanding
scope of this legal battle, Ghana is now the latest African nation in which Meta’s content
moderators are suing the technology giant. Similar to the now high-profile cases from
Kenya and South Africa, the Ghanaian lawsuit alleges Meta breached a duty of care
owed to content moderators working in the country. They were allegedly subjected to
harmful content without proper psychological protections.
The Ghanaian plaintiffs’ accounts detail the development of severe mental health
conditions. They allege this was a direct consequence of their jobs. This situation is
indicative of the dire realities faced by content moderators across Africa. Among them
are several of the charges being corroborated by a recent joint investigation by the UK
independent newspaper the Guardian and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.
This corroborative evidence has significantly bolstered the legal case against Meta,
underscoring the alleged failure to protect workers from being exposed to toxic material.
Consequently, a growing pan-continental concern is growing regarding the well-beingand safety of those who engaged in the critical, yet largely unseen, work of policing
digital spaces.
Ghana’s involvement in this latest wave of litigation has increased the unified chorus,
demanding greater accountability and improved working conditions for these essential,
yet often overlooked, gatekeepers in the digital ecosystem.
Legal Actions in South Africa and Kenya
Prior to the Ghanaian lawsuit, a similar legal action had already begun in South Africa.
Likewise to the case in Kenya, the South African lawsuit highlights the potential
long-term psychological effects on children exposed to harmful content. This case goes
even further to allege that African moderators were treated to a separate, inferior
standard compared to their colleagues in other parts of the world. In South Africa,
plaintiffs argue that Meta owes a fundamental duty of care to all its employees,
regardless of their geographical location, and that the provisions currently in place are,
at the very least, inadequate to meet this duty.
This first wave of lawsuits began in Kenya, where former and current moderators have
filed a class action suit against their employers based on allegations of an unsafe work
environment and negligent provision of psychological support.
Litigants in Kenya recount experiencing debilitating mental health conditions including
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), anxiety, and depression as a direct
consequence of having to view highly graphic and violent content, frequently with little to
no access to emotional debriefing or mental health services. Through their legal case,
they are looking to hold Meta accountable for the harms done, and require that the
company does far more to protect the health of its content moderation staff.
Separately, Kenyan courts ruled that Meta could indeed be held accountable in the East
Africa nation for its involvement there in the proliferation of hate speech that fanned the
flames of the conflict in Ethiopia. This decision represents another victory in securing
Kenyan courts as the appropriate forum to hear this important case, defeating for now
all of Meta’s attempts to argue otherwise.
The Realities of Content Moderation
Content moderators, the majority of whom are located in and around the Global South,
share their stories to shed light on the challenging nature of their jobs. These
moderators are literally the first line of defense against a tidal wave of harmful content
that would otherwise spread like wildfire across the internet. They are allegedly exposed
to a continuous flow of abusive, hateful, and violent content.
These conditions, the plaintiffs claim, caused traumatic symptoms, insomnia, and
emotional distress, which was exacerbated by what appears to be a refusal to provide
proper psychological support.
Meta’s Stated Position
Meta maintains the claim that it prioritizes the safety and well-being of its global content
moderating workforce. To support this, the company frequently promotes its features,
which it says include on-site wellness coaches, immediate access to therapy, and
resilience training programs. Meta has argued that these measures should be
considered as part of the company’s ongoing attempt to create a safer workplace and
completely train its moderation staff.
In response to the lawsuit, a representative from Meta’s law firm said that Meta was
taking these accusations very seriously and is dedicated to creating a safe and inclusive
environment for all content on its platforms.
Criticism and Potential Legal Arguments for Meta
Critics argue that these current measures Meta has put in place will not be sufficient to
shield contractors from the severe psychological trauma experienced by employees of
their platforms, especially in nations where mental healthcare is not readily accessible.
Meta’s possible legal defense might include arguing that the company is in compliance
with laws from every jurisdiction in which it operates. Secondly, Meta might argue that
the content that is flagged is in fact indicative of the global community standards and
legal variations. The tech giant might also highlight clauses in its Terms of Service and
contractual agreements with moderation contractors, where workers acknowledged the
potential exposure to harmful content.
Also, in defense, Meta will probably point to its key investments in programs that
support mental health and its ongoing efforts to improve these resources.Meta might also show the multi-dimensionality of moderating a global platform with
billions of users and illustrate the challenging process of enforcing uniform international
standards.
Their legal strategy will have to prove they exercised enough due diligence in trying to
mitigate the amount of harm that has occurred and what they provided or offered was
within their reasonable reach. That is, if plaintiffs argue otherwise that this isn’t enough.
Broader Implications for Tech Accountability in Africa
These high-profile legal actions in Ghana, South Africa, and Kenya are part of a larger
movement for multinational technology corporations operating in Africa and their
accountability to those whom they harm. They perform a vital task in interrogating the
ethical obligations these tech companies owe to their African workers and advocates’
demands for stronger regulatory oversight.
As the digital space continues to expand further onto the African continent, ensuring
equitable production conditions and adequate mental health support for those who take
on these demanding jobs of protecting online communities is even more critical.
Dealing with Complex Legal and Ethical Issues
The ensuing litigation will certainly be filled with nuanced arguments about duty of care,
adequacy of Meta’s support infrastructure, and long-term mental health impacts of
content moderation work.
It will be up to Ghanaian, South African and Kenyan courts to listen to the evidence
provided by each side and determine the balance between the operational needs of a
global technology platform and the fundamental rights and welfare of its workforce. This
is a fundamental principle of building an inclusive workplace and a moral imperative that
tech companies must correct their shortcomings on mental health related to content
moderation, plus a commitment to comprehensive, culturally-competent,
easily-accessible support systems.
Now that Ghana has joined this legal fight, it is even more imperative to take a
consistent and much fairer approach to worker welfare through Meta’s operations
throughout the continent.
A Changing Legal Landscape
These massive legal battles looming over Ghana, South Africa, and Kenya highlight a
growing call for tech giants to take responsibility for the damage they are causing on the
African continent. It’s a matter of shining light on corporate accountability these
companies have to the people they employ on the continent and demanding tougher
regulation and oversight.
If these suits succeed, their positive outcomes could serve as a powerful precedent for
raising labor standards to the benefit of the workers in the multinational tech industry.
These combined legal actions initiated by the three African countries may prompt other
jurisdictions to examine the labor practice and provision of mental health treatment of
content moderators.
On the other hand, if these suits fail, the ramifications would be disappointing to the
pursuit of greater tech responsibility on the continent and worldwide. A negative ruling
would mean that current legal protections are inadequate to cover the unique situation
of content moderators. It may embolden multinational tech giants to continue business
as usual in terms of labor practices and mental health care. A defeat would eliminate
the pressure for improved standards, and it would be more difficult for workers in other
regions with the same conditions to seek legal remedy, possibly bringing long-overdue
improvements in their own workplaces to a halt.
SOURCE:
A joint investigation with the UK’s Guardian and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.
