Watercress Loses Injunction Bid as Court Affirms ARCON’s Authority Over Digital Advertising

The Federal High Court in Lagos has once again confirmed the constitutional and legal authority of the Advertising Regulatory Council of Nigeria (ARCON), dismissing an interlocutory injunction sought by Watercress Hotel International Limited and co-plaintiff Samuel Ayinde against ARCON and the Attorney General of the Federation. This ruling marks at least the third recent judicial affirmation of ARCON’s mandate to regulate advertising in Nigeria.

Delivered by Hon. Justice Akintayo Aluko in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/12/26, the ruling follows a consistent judicial pattern of upholding ARCON’s powers. In April 2025, the Federal High Court had sided with ARCON in Digi Bay Limited (trading as Betway Nigeria) v. ARCON, affirming the Council’s authority to regulate digital and social media advertising, including content on Instagram directed at Nigerian audiences. Later, in November 2025, a separate case—Godec Power Nigeria Ltd. v. ARCON—also validated the ARCON Act, 2022, and the Council’s statutory oversight of advertising communications targeting the Nigerian market. The latest ruling adds another judicial endorsement to ARCON’s regulatory remit.

Watercress Hotel International Limited had approached the Court seeking to restrain ARCON and its agents from taking further regulatory or enforcement action against the company, pending the outcome of the substantive case. The application was particularly focused on an alleged bench warrant. The Plaintiff argued that its social media page was private and that content published on it was protected by the constitutional right to freedom of expression, thus outside ARCON’s regulatory scope.

The Court, however, dismissed this argument outright. It clarified that the key issue is not the platform on which content appears but the nature and purpose of the communication itself. This ruling effectively limits the “private platform” defence against ARCON’s oversight in future disputes. Furthermore, the Court found that the Plaintiff had failed to provide sufficient credible evidence regarding the alleged bench warrant, leaving the application without legal or evidential basis.

All reliefs sought in the interlocutory application were refused. It is important to emphasise that this is a preliminary ruling, not the final decision on the case. The substantive issues are yet to be fully examined. The Court has adjourned proceedings to 26 October 2026 for an accelerated hearing, with all parties directed to file and serve outstanding documents within specified timelines to expedite the matter.