#FactCheck - Debunked: Viral Video Falsely Claims Allu Arjun Joins Congress Campaign

The global race for Artificial Intelligence is heating up, and India has become one of its most important battlegrounds. Over the past few months, tech giants like OpenAI (ChatGPT), Google (Gemini), X (Grok), Meta (Llama), and Perplexity AI have stepped up their presence in the country,  not by selling their AI tools, but by offering them free or at deep discounts.

At first, it feels like a huge win for India’s digital generation. Students, professionals, and entrepreneurs today can tap into some of the world’s most powerful AI tools without paying a rupee. It feels like a digital revolution unfolding in real time. Yet, beneath this generosity lies a more complicated truth. Experts caution that this wave of “free” AI access isn’t without strings attached. This offering impacts how India handles data privacy, the fairness of competition, and the pace of the development of homegrown AI innovation that the country is focusing on. 

‍

The Market Strategy: Free Now, Pay Later  

‍

The choice of global AI companies to offer free access in India is a calculated business strategy. With one of the world’s largest and fastest-growing digital populations, India is a market no tech giant wants to miss. By giving away their AI tools for free, these firms are playing a long game:

1. Securing market share early: Flooding the market with free access helps them quickly attract millions of users before Indian startups have a chance to catch up. Recent examples are Perplexity, ChatGPT Go and Gemini AI which are offering free subscriptions to Indian users. 
2. Gathering local data: Every interaction, every prompt, question, or language pattern, helps these models learn from larger datasets to improve their product offerings in India and the rest of the world. Nothing is free in the world - as the popular saying goes, “if something is free, means you are the product. The same goes for these AI platforms: they monetise user data by analysing chats and their behaviour to refine their model and build paid products. This creates the privacy risk as India currently lacks specific laws to govern how such data is stored, processed or used for AI training. 
3. Create user dependency: Once users grow accustomed to the quality and convenience of these global models, shifting to Indian alternatives,  even when they become paid, will be difficult. This approach mirrors the “freemium” model used in other tech sectors, where users are first attracted through free access and later monetised through subscriptions or premium features, raising ethical concerns.  

Impact on Indian Users

‍

For most Indians, the short-term impact of free AI access feels overwhelmingly positive. Tools like ChatGPT and Gemini are breaking down barriers by democratising knowledge and making advanced technology available to everyone, from students, professionals, to small businesses.  It’s changing how people learn, think and do - all without spending a single rupee.But the long-term picture isn’t quite as simple. Beneath the convenience lies a set of growing concerns:

• Data privacy risks: Many users don’t realise that their chats, prompts, or queries might be stored and used to train global AI models. Without strong data protection laws in action, sensitive Indian data could easily find its way into foreign systems.
• Overdependence on foreign technology: Once these AI tools become part of people’s daily lives, moving away from them gets harder — especially if free access later turns into paid plans or comes with restrictive conditions.
• Language and cultural bias: Most large AI models are still built mainly around English and Western data. Without enough Indian language content and cultural representation, the technology risks overlooking the very diversity that defines India

Impact on India’s AI Ecosystem  

India’s Generative AI market, valued at USD $ 1.30 billion in 2024, is projected to reach 5.40 billion by 2033. Yet, this growth story may become uneven if global players dominate early.  

Domestic AI startups face multiple hurdles — limited funding, high compute costs, and difficulty in accessing large, diverse datasets. The arrival of free, GPT-4-level models sharpens these challenges by raising user expectations and increasing customer acquisition costs.  

As AI analyst Kashyap Kompella notes, “If users can access GPT-4-level quality at zero cost, their incentive to try local models that still need refinement will be low.” This could stifle innovation at home, resulting in a shallow domestic AI ecosystem where India consumes global technology but contributes little to its creation.  

CCI’s Intervention: Guarding Fair Competition  

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has started taking note of how global AI companies are shaping India’s digital market. In a recent report, it cautioned that AI-driven pricing strategies such as offering free or heavily subsidised access could distort healthy competition and create an uneven playing field for smaller Indian developers.

The CCI’s decision to step in is both timely and necessary. Without proper oversight, such tactics could gradually push homegrown AI startups to the sidelines and allow a few foreign tech giants to gain disproportionate influence over India’s emerging AI economy.  

 What the Indian Government Should Do  

To ensure India’s AI landscape remains competitive, inclusive, and innovation-driven, the government must adopt a balanced strategy that safeguards users while empowering local developers.  

 1. Promote Fair Competition  

The government should mandate transparency in free access offers, including their duration, renewal terms, and data-use policies.  Exclusivity deals between foreign AI firms and telecom or device companies must be closely monitored to prevent monopolistic practices.  

 2. Strengthen Data Protection 

Under the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, companies should be required to obtain explicit consent from users before using data for model training.  Encourage data localisation, ensuring that sensitive Indian data remains stored within India’s borders.  

3. Support Domestic AI Innovation  

Accelerate the implementation of the IndiaAI Mission to provide public compute infrastructure, open datasets, and research funding to local AI developers like  Sarvam AI, an Indian company chosen by the government to build the country's first homegrown large language model (LLM) under IndianAI Mission. 

4. Create an Open AI Ecosystem

India should develop national AI benchmarks to evaluate all models, foreign or domestic, on performance, fairness, and linguistic diversity. And at the same time, they have their own national data Centre to train their indigenous  AI models. 

5. Encourage Responsible Global Collaboration

Speaking at the AI Action Summit 2025, the Prime Minister highlighted that governance should go beyond managing risks and should also promote innovation for the global good. Building on this idea, India should encourage global AI companies to invest meaningfully in the country’s ecosystem through research labs, data centres, and AI education programmes. Such collaborations will ensure that these partnerships not only expand markets but also create value, jobs and knowledge within India.

Conclusion

The surge of free AI access across India represents a defining moment in the nation’s digital journey. On one hand, it’s empowering millions of people and accelerating AI awareness like never before. On the other hand, it poses serious challenges from over-reliance on foreign platforms to potential risks around data privacy and the slow growth of local innovation. India’s real test will be finding the right balance between access and autonomy, allowing global AI leaders to innovate and operate here, but within a framework that protects the interests of Indian users, startups, and data ecosystems. With strong and timely action under the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, the IndiaAI Mission, and the Competition Commission of India’s (CCI) active oversight, India can make sure this AI revolution isn’t just something that happens to the country, but for it. 

References

1. https://www.moneycontrol.com/artificial-intelligence/cci-study-flags-steep-barriers-for-indian-ai-startups-calls-for-open-data-and-compute-access-to-level-playing-field-article-13600606.html# 
2. https://www.imarcgroup.com/india-generative-ai-market 
3. https://www.mea.gov.in/Speeches-Statements.htm?dtl/39020/Opening_Address_by_Prime_Minister_Shri_Narendra_Modi_at_the_AI_Action_Summit_Paris_February_11_2025 
4. https://m.economictimes.com/tech/artificial-intelligence/nasscom-planning-local-benchmarks-for-indic-ai-models/articleshow/124218208.cms 
5. https://indianexpress.com/article/business/centre-selects-start-up-sarvam-to-build-country-first-homegrown-ai-model-9967243/# 

‍

Introduction 

In a major policy shift aimed at synchronizing India's fight against cyber-enabled financial crimes, the government has taken a landmark step by bringing the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) under the ambit of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). In the notification released in the official gazette on 25th April, 2025, the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, included the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) under Section 66 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “PMLA”). The step comes as a significant attempt to resolve the asynchronous approach of different agencies (Enforcement Directorate (ED), State Police, CBI, CERT-In, RBI) set up under the government responsible for preventing and often possessing key information regarding cyber crimes and financial crimes. As it is correctly put, "When criminals sprint and the administration strolls, the finish line is lost.” 

The gazetted notification dated 25th April, 2025, read as follows:

“In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 66 of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003), the Central Government, on being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest to do so, hereby makes the following further amendment in the notification of the Government of India, in the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, section 3, sub-section (i) vide number G.S.R. 381(E), dated the 27th June, 2006, namely:- In the said notification, after serial number (26) and the entry relating thereto, the following serial number and entry shall be inserted, namely:— “(27) Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C).”.

Outrunning Crime: Strengthening Enforcement through Rapid Coordination 

The usage of cyberspace to commit sophisticated financial crimes and white-collar crimes is a one criminal parallel passover that no one was looking forward to. The disenchanted reality of today’s world is that the internet is used for as much bad as it is for good. The internet has now entered the financial domain, facilitating various financial crimes. Money laundering is a financial crime that includes all processes or activities that are in connection with the concealment, possession, acquisition, or use of proceeds of crime and projecting it as untainted money. In the offence of money laundering, there is an intricate web and trail of financial transactions that are hard to track, as they are, and with the advent of the internet, the transactions are often digital, and the absence of crucial information hampers the evidentiary chain. With this new step, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) will now make headway into the investigation with the information exchange under PMLA from and to I4C, removing the obstacles that existed before this notification.

Impact

The decision of the finance ministry has to be seen in terms of all that is happening around the globe, with the rapid increase in sophisticated financial crimes. By formally empowering the I4C to share and receive information with the Enforcement Directorate under PMLA, the government acknowledges the blurred lines between conventional financial crime and cybercrime. It strengthens India’s financial surveillance, where money laundering and cyber fraud are increasingly two sides of the same coin. The assessment of the impact can be made from the following facilitations enabled by the decision: 

• Quicker internet detection of money laundering
• Money trail tracking in real time across online platforms
• Rapid freeze of cryptocurrency wallets or assets obtained fraudulently

Another important aspect of this decision is that it serves as a signal that India is finally equipping itself and treating cyber-enabled financial crimes with the gravitas that is the need of the hour. This decision creates a two-way intelligence flow between cybercrime detection units and financial enforcement agencies. 

Conclusion

To counter the fragmented approach in handling cyber-enabled white-collar crimes and money laundering, the Indian government has fortified its legal and enforcement framework by extending PMLA’s reach to the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C). All the decisions and the brainstorming that led up to this notification are crucial at this point in time for the cybercrime framework that India needs to be on par with other countries. Although India has come a long way in designing a robust cybercrime intelligence structure, as long as it excludes and works in isolation, it will be ineffective. So, the current decision in discussion should only be the beginning of a more comprehensive policy evolution. The government must further integrate and devise a separate mechanism to track “digital footprints” and incorporate a real-time red flag mechanism in digital transactions suspected to be linked to laundering or fraud. 

‍

Misinformation spread has become a cause for concern for all stakeholders, be it the government, policymakers, business organisations or the citizens. The current push for combating misinformation is rooted in the growing awareness that misinformation leads to sentiment exploitation and can result in economic instability, personal risks, and a rise in political, regional, and religious tensions. The circulation of misinformation poses significant challenges for organisations, brands and administrators of all types. The spread of misinformation online poses a risk not only to the everyday content consumer, but also creates concerns for the sharer but the platforms themselves. Sharing misinformation in the digital realm, intentionally or not, can have real consequences.

Consequences for Platforms

Platforms have been scrutinised for the content they allow to be published and what they don't. It is important to understand not only how this misinformation affects platform users, but also its impact and consequences for the platforms themselves. These consequences highlight the complex environment that social media platforms operate in, where the stakes are high from the perspective of both business and societal impact. They are:

• Legal Consequences: Platforms can be fined by regulators if they fail to comply with content moderation or misinformation-related laws and a prime example of such a law is the Digital Services Act of the EU, which has been created for the regulation of digital services that act as intermediaries for consumers and goods, services, and content. They can face lawsuits by individuals, organisations or governments for any damages due to misinformation. Defamation suits are part of the standard practice when dealing with misinformation-causing vectors.  In India, the Prohibition of Fake News on Social Media Bill of 2023 is in the pipeline and would establish a regulatory body for fake news on social media platforms. 
• Reputational Consequences: Platforms employ a trust model where the user trusts it and its content. If a user loses trust in the platform because of misinformation, it can reduce engagement. This might even lead to negative coverage that affects the public opinion of the brand, its value and viability in the long run. 
• Financial Consequences: Businesses that engage with the platform may end their engagement with platforms accused of misinformation, which can lead to a revenue drop. This can also have major consequences affecting the long-term financial health of the platform, such as a decline in stock prices.
• Operational Consequences: To counter the scrutiny from regulators, the platform might need to engage in stricter content moderation policies or other resource-intensive tasks, increasing operational costs for the platforms. 
• Market Position Loss: If the reliability of a platform is under question, then, platform users can migrate to other platforms, leading to a loss in the market share in favour of those platforms that manage misinformation more effectively.
• Freedom of Expression vs. Censorship Debate: There needs to be a balance between freedom of expression and the prevention of misinformation. Censorship can become an accusation for the platform in case of stricter content moderation and if the users feel that their opinions are unfairly suppressed. 
• Ethical and Moral Responsibilities: Accountability for platforms extends to moral accountability as they allow content that affects different spheres of the user's life such as public health, democracy etc. Misinformation can cause real-world harm like health misinformation or inciting violence, which leads to the fact that platforms have social responsibility too.

Misinformation has turned into a global issue and because of this, digital platforms need to be vigilant while they navigate the varying legal, cultural and social expectations across different jurisdictions. Efforts to create standardised practices and policies have been complicated by the diversity of approaches, leading platforms to adopt flexible strategies for managing misinformation that align with global and local standards.

Addressing the Consequences

These consequences can be addressed by undertaking the following measures:

• The implementation of a more robust content moderation system by the platforms using a combination of AI and human oversight for the identification and removal of misinformation in an effective manner. 
• Enhancing the transparency in platform policies for content moderation and decision-making would build user trust and reduce the backlash associated with perceived censorship. 
• Collaborations with fact checkers in the form of partnerships to help verify the accuracy of content and reduce the spread of misinformation.
• Engage with regulators proactively to stay ahead of legal and regulatory requirements and avoid punitive actions. 
• Platforms should Invest in media literacy initiatives and help users critically evaluate the content available to them. 

Final Takeaways

The accrual of misinformation on digital platforms has resulted in presenting significant challenges across legal, reputational, financial, and operational functions for all stakeholders. As a result, a critical need arises where the interlinked, but seemingly-exclusive priorities of preventing misinformation and upholding freedom of expression must be balanced. Platforms must invest in the creation and implementation of a robust content moderation system with in-built transparency, collaborating with fact-checkers, and media literacy efforts to mitigate the adverse effects of misinformation. In addition to this, adapting to diverse international standards is essential to maintaining their global presence and societal trust.

References

• https://pirg.org/edfund/articles/misinformation-on-social-media/ 
• https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/12/12/674
• https://scroll.in/article/1057626/israel-hamas-war-misinformation-is-being-spread-across-social-media-with-real-world-consequences 
• https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/01-09-2022-infodemics-and-misinformation-negatively-affect-people-s-health-behaviours--new-who-review-finds 

‍