#FactCheck - Misleading Viral Video Targets Rubika Liyaquat, Original Footage Tells Different Story
Executive Summary
A video circulating on social media claims that a Pakistani man misbehaved with TV anchor Rubika Liyaquat during a live television debate. Users sharing the clip alleged that the Pakistani participant silenced the anchor on live TV.
However, research by CyberPeace found the viral claim to be false and revealed that the video being shared on social media is edited. In the original video, published on YouTube on November 26, 2025, the alleged Pakistani man was not present in the TV debate.
Claim
On February 13, 2026, a user shared the viral clip on X (formerly Twitter), claiming that the anchor was insulted during the debate and was left speechless. Another user on February 11, 2026, asked News18 India to verify the video and questioned who allowed such behaviour towards the journalist on air.
Fact Check:
To verify the claim, we extracted key frames from the viral video and conducted a reverse image search using Google Lens. During the research, we found the full version of the debate uploaded on the official YouTube channel of News18 India on November 26, 2025. The nearly 40-minute original broadcast featured anchor Rubika Liyaquat along with panelists Zafar Islam, Varun Purohit, Prateek Kumar, Arvind Kumar Vajpayee, Tausif Ahmed Khan, and Aziz Khan. However, the person seen misbehaving with the anchor in the viral clip was not present in the original video.
Upon carefully reviewing the footage, we located the actual segment around the 25-minute 40-second mark. In this portion, the anchor can be heard asking panelist Tausif Ahmed Khan to leave the show, using the same words heard in the viral clip. However, the original broadcast does not feature any Pakistani participant or any individual named “Nadeem Shahzad.”
Conclusion
Our research found that the viral claim is false. The circulating video has been edited, and the alleged Pakistani participant does not appear in the original debate uploaded on November 26, 2025.
Related Blogs
Introduction
In an era when misinformation spreads like wildfire across the digital landscape, the need for effective strategies to counteract these challenges has grown exponentially in a very short period. Prebunking and Debunking are two approaches for countering the growing spread of misinformation online. Prebunking empowers individuals by teaching them to discern between true and false information and acts as a protective layer that comes into play even before people encounter malicious content. Debunking is the correction of false or misleading claims after exposure, aiming to undo or reverse the effects of a particular piece of misinformation. Debunking includes methods such as fact-checking, algorithmic correction on a platform, social correction by an individual or group of online peers, or fact-checking reports by expert organisations or journalists. An integrated approach which involves both strategies can be effective in countering the rapid spread of misinformation online.
Brief Analysis of Prebunking
Prebunking is a proactive practice that seeks to rebut erroneous information before it spreads. The goal is to train people to critically analyse information and develop ‘cognitive immunity’ so that they are less likely to be misled when they do encounter misinformation.
The Prebunking approach, grounded in Inoculation theory, teaches people to recognise, analyse and avoid manipulation and misleading content so that they build resilience against the same. Inoculation theory, a social psychology framework, suggests that pre-emptively conferring psychological resistance against malicious persuasion attempts can reduce susceptibility to misinformation across cultures. As the term suggests, the MO is to help the mind in the present develop resistance to influence that it may encounter in the future. Just as medical vaccines or inoculations help the body build resistance to future infections by administering weakened doses of the harm agent, inoculation theory seeks to teach people fact from fiction through exposure to examples of weak, dichotomous arguments, manipulation tactics like emotionally charged language, case studies that draw parallels between truths and distortions, and so on. In showing people the difference, inoculation theory teaches them to be on the lookout for misinformation and manipulation even, or especially, when they least expect it.
The core difference between Prebunking and Debunking is that while the former is preventative and seeks to provide a broad-spectrum cover against misinformation, the latter is reactive and focuses on specific instances of misinformation. While Debunking is closely tied to fact-checking, Prebunking is tied to a wider range of specific interventions, some of which increase motivation to be vigilant against misinformation and others increase the ability to engage in vigilance with success.
There is much to be said in favour of the Prebunking approach because these interventions build the capacity to identify misinformation and recognise red flags However, their success in practice may vary. It might be difficult to scale up Prebunking efforts and ensure their reach to a larger audience. Sustainability is critical in ensuring that Prebunking measures maintain their impact over time. Continuous reinforcement and reminders may be required to ensure that individuals retain the skills and information they gained from the Prebunking training activities. Misinformation tactics and strategies are always evolving, so it is critical that Prebunking interventions are also flexible and agile and respond promptly to developing challenges. This may be easier said than done, but with new misinformation and cyber threats developing frequently, it is a challenge that has to be addressed for Prebunking to be a successful long-term solution.
Encouraging people to be actively cautious while interacting with information, acquire critical thinking abilities, and reject the effect of misinformation requires a significant behavioural change over a relatively short period of time. Overcoming ingrained habits and prejudices, and countering a natural reluctance to change is no mean feat. Developing a widespread culture of information literacy requires years of social conditioning and unlearning and may pose a significant challenge to the effectiveness of Prebunking interventions.
Brief Analysis of Debunking
Debunking is a technique for identifying and informing people that certain news items or information are incorrect or misleading. It seeks to lessen the impact of misinformation that has already spread. The most popular kind of Debunking occurs through collaboration between fact-checking organisations and social media businesses. Journalists or other fact-checkers discover inaccurate or misleading material, and social media platforms flag or label it. Debunking is an important strategy for curtailing the spread of misinformation and promoting accuracy in the digital information ecosystem.
Debunking interventions are crucial in combating misinformation. However, there are certain challenges associated with the same. Debunking misinformation entails critically verifying facts and promoting corrected information. However, this is difficult owing to the rising complexity of modern tools used to generate narratives that combine truth and untruth, views and facts. These advanced approaches, which include emotional spectrum elements, deepfakes, audiovisual material, and pervasive trolling, necessitate a sophisticated reaction at all levels: technological, organisational, and cultural.
Furthermore, It is impossible to debunk all misinformation at any given time, which effectively means that it is impossible to protect everyone at all times, which means that at least some innocent netizens will fall victim to manipulation despite our best efforts. Debunking is inherently reactive in nature, addressing misinformation after it has grown extensively. This reactionary method may be less successful than proactive strategies such as Prebunking from the perspective of total harm done. Misinformation producers operate swiftly and unexpectedly, making it difficult for fact-checkers to keep up with the rapid dissemination of erroneous or misleading information. Debunking may need continuous exposure to fact-check to prevent erroneous beliefs from forming, implying that a single Debunking may not be enough to rectify misinformation. Debunking requires time and resources, and it is not possible to disprove every piece of misinformation that circulates at any particular moment. This constraint may cause certain misinformation to go unchecked, perhaps leading to unexpected effects. The misinformation on social media can be quickly spread and may become viral faster than Debunking pieces or articles. This leads to a situation in which misinformation spreads like a virus, while the antidote to debunked facts struggles to catch up.
Prebunking vs Debunking: Comparative Analysis
Prebunking interventions seek to educate people to recognise and reject misinformation before they are exposed to actual manipulation. Prebunking offers tactics for critical examination, lessening the individuals' susceptibility to misinformation in a variety of contexts. On the other hand, Debunking interventions involve correcting specific false claims after they have been circulated. While Debunking can address individual instances of misinformation, its impact on reducing overall reliance on misinformation may be limited by the reactive nature of the approach.
.png)
CyberPeace Policy Recommendations for Tech/Social Media Platforms
With the rising threat of online misinformation, tech/social media platforms can adopt an integrated strategy that includes both Prebunking and Debunking initiatives to be deployed and supported on all platforms to empower users to recognise the manipulative messaging through Prebunking and be aware of the accuracy of misinformation through Debunking interventions.
- Gamified Inoculation: Tech/social media companies can encourage gamified inoculation campaigns, which is a competence-oriented approach to Prebunking misinformation. This can be effective in helping people immunise the receiver against subsequent exposures. It can empower people to build competencies to detect misinformation through gamified interventions.
- Promotion of Prebunking and Debunking Campaigns through Algorithm Mechanisms: Tech/social media platforms may promote and guarantee that algorithms prioritise the distribution of Prebunking materials to users, boosting educational content that strengthens resistance to misinformation. Platform operators should incorporate algorithms that prioritise the visibility of Debunking content in order to combat the spread of erroneous information and deliver proper corrections; this can eventually address and aid in Prebunking and Debunking methods to reach a bigger or targeted audience.
- User Empowerment to Counter Misinformation: Tech/social media platforms can design user-friendly interfaces that allow people to access Prebunking materials, quizzes, and instructional information to help them improve their critical thinking abilities. Furthermore, they can incorporate simple reporting tools for flagging misinformation, as well as links to fact-checking resources and corrections.
- Partnership with Fact-Checking/Expert Organizations: Tech/social media platforms can facilitate Prebunking and Debunking initiatives/campaigns by collaborating with fact-checking/expert organisations and promoting such initiatives at a larger scale and ultimately fighting misinformation with joint hands initiatives.
Conclusion
The threat of online misinformation is only growing with every passing day and so, deploying effective countermeasures is essential. Prebunking and Debunking are the two such interventions. To sum up: Prebunking interventions try to increase resilience to misinformation, proactively lowering susceptibility to erroneous or misleading information and addressing broader patterns of misinformation consumption, while Debunking is effective in correcting a particular piece of misinformation and having a targeted impact on belief in individual false claims. An integrated approach involving both the methods and joint initiatives by tech/social media platforms and expert organizations can ultimately help in fighting the rising tide of online misinformation and establishing a resilient online information landscape.
References
- https://mark-hurlstone.github.io/THKE.22.BJP.pdf
- https://futurefreespeech.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Empowering-Audiences-Through-%E2%80%98Prebunking-Michael-Bang-Petersen-Background-Report_formatted.pdf
- https://newsreel.pte.hu/news/unprecedented_challenges_Debunking_disinformation
- https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/article/global-vaccination-badnews/
Introduction
Given the era of digital trust and technological innovation, the age of artificial intelligence has provided a new dimension to how people communicate and how they create and consume content. However, like all borrowed powers, the misuse of AI can lead to terrible consequences. One recent dark example was a cybercrime in Brazil: a sophisticated online scam using deepfake technology to impersonate celebrities of global stature, including supermodel Gisele Bündchen, in misleading Instagram ads. Luring in millions of reais in revenue, this crime clearly brings forth the concern of AI-generative content having rightfully set on the side of criminals.
Scam in Motion
Lately, the federal police of Brazil have stated that this scheme has been in circulation since 2024, when the ads were already being touted as apparently very genuine, using AI-generated video and images. The ads showed Gisele Bündchen and other celebrities endorsing skincare products, promotional giveaways, or time-limited discounts. The victims were tricked into making petty payments, mostly under 100 reais (about $19) for these fake products or were lured into paying "shipping costs" for prizes that never actually arrived.
The criminals leveraged their approach by scaling it up and focusing on minor losses accumulated from every victim, thus christening it "statistical immunity" by investigators. Victims being pocketed only a couple of dollars made most of them stay on their heels in terms of filing a complaint, thereby allowing these crooks extra limbs to shove on. Over time, authorities estimated that the group had gathered over 20 million reais ($3.9 million) in this elaborate con.
The scam was detected when a victim came forth with the information that an Instagram advertisement portraying a deepfake video of Gisele Bündchen was indeed false. With Anna looking to be Gisele and on the recommendation of a skincare company, the deepfake video was the most well-produced fake video. On going further into the matter, it became apparent that the investigations uncovered a whole network of deceptive social media pages, payment gateways, and laundering channels spread over five states in Brazil.
The Role of AI and Deepfakes in Modern Fraud
It is one of the first few large-scale cases in Brazil where AI-generated deepfakes have been used to perpetrate financial fraud. Deepfake technology, aided by machine learning algorithms, can realistically mimic human appearance and speech and has become increasingly accessible and sophisticated. Whereas before a level of expertise and computer resources were needed, one now only requires an online tool or app.
With criminals gaining a psychological advantage through deepfakes, the audiences would be more willing to accept the ad as being genuine as they saw a familiar and trusted face, a celebrity known for integrity and success. The human brain is wired to trust certain visual cues, making deepfakes an exploitation of this cognitive bias. Unlike phishing emails brimming with spelling and grammatical errors, deepfake videos are immersive, emotional, and visually convincing.
This is the growing terrain: AI-enabled misinformation. From financial scams to political propaganda, manipulated media is killing trust in the digital ecosystem.
Legalities and Platform Accountability
The Brazilian government had taken a proactive stance on the issue. In June 2025, the country's Supreme Court held that social media platforms could be held liable for failure to expeditiously remove criminal content, even in the absence of a formal order from a court. The icing on the cake is that that judgment would go a long way in architecting platform accountability in Brazil and potentially worldwide as jurisdictions adopt processes to deal with AI-generated fraud.
Meta, the parent company of Instagram, had said its policies forbid "ads that deceptively use public figures to scam people." Meta claims to use advanced detection mechanisms, trained review teams, and user tools to report violations. The persistence of such scams shows that the enforcement mechanisms still lag the pace and scale of AI-based deception.
Why These Scams Succeed
There are many reasons for the success of these AI-powered scams.
- Trust Due to Familiarity: Human beings tend to believe anything put forth by a known individual.
- Micro-Fraud: Keeping the money laundered from victims small prevents any increase in the number of complaints about these crimes.
- Speed To Create Content: New ads are being generated by criminals faster than ads can be checked for and removed by platforms via AI tools.
- Cross-Platform Propagation: A deepfake ad is then reshared onto various other social networking platforms once it starts gaining some traction, thereby worsening the problem.
- Absence of Public Awareness: Most users still cannot discern manipulated media, especially when high-quality deepfakes come into play.
Wider Implications on Cybersecurity and Society
The Brazilian case is but a microcosm of a much bigger problem. With deepfake technology evolving, AI-generated deception threatens not only individuals but also institutions, markets, and democratic systems. From investment scams and fake charters to synthetic IDs for corporate fraud, the possibilities for abuse are endless.
Moreover, with generative AIs being adopted by cybercriminals, law enforcement faces obstructions to properly attributing, validating evidence, and conducting digital forensics. Determining what is actual and what is manipulated has now given rise to the need for a forensic AI model that has triggered the deployment of the opposite on the other side, the attacker, thus initiating a rising tech arms race between the two parties.
Protecting Citizens from AI-Powered Scams
Public awareness has remained the best defence for people in such scams. Gisele Bündchen's squad encouraged members of the public to verify any advertisement through official brand or celebrity channels before engaging with said advertisements. Consumers need to be wary of offers that appear "too good to be true" and double-check the URL for authenticity before sharing any kind of personal information
Individually though, just a few acts go so far in lessening some of the risk factors:
- Verify an advertisement's origin before clicking or sharing it
- Never share any monetary or sensitive personal information through an unverifiable link
- Enable two-factor authentication on all your social accounts
- Periodically check transaction history for any unusual activity
- Report any deepfake or fraudulent advertisement immediately to the platform or cybercrime authorities
Collaboration will be the way ahead for governments and technology companies. Investing in AI-based detection systems, cooperating on international law enforcement, and building capacity for digital literacy programs will enable us to stem this rising tide of synthetic media scams.
Conclusion
The deepfake case in Brazil with Gisele Bündchen acts as a clarion for citizens and legislators alike. This shows the evolution of cybercrime that profited off the very AI technologies that were once hailed for innovation and creativity. In this new digital frontier that society is now embracing, authenticity stands closer to manipulation, disappearing faster with each dawn.
While keeping public safety will certainly still require great cybersecurity measures in this new environment, it will demand equal contributions on vigilance, awareness, and ethical responsibility. Deepfakes are not only a technology problem but a societal one-crossing into global cooperation, media literacy, and accountability at every level throughout the entire digital ecosystem.
WhatsApp messages masquerading as an offer from Maruti Suzuki with links luring unsuspecting users with the promise of Maruti Suzuki 40th Anniversary Celebration presents, have been making the rounds on the app. If you receive such messages try to stay away from it, as it can be a scam.
The Research Wing of CyberPeace Foundation along with Autobot Infosec Private Limited have conducted a study based on a WhatsApp message that contained a link pretending to be a free gift offer from Maruti Suzuki which asks users to participate in a survey in order to get a chance to win a Maruti Baleno Sigma MT car.
Warning SignsThe campaign pretends to be an offer from Maruti Suzuki but is hosted on a third party domain instead of the official Maruti Suzuki website which makes it more suspicious.
The domain names associated with the campaign have been registered in very recent times.
Multiple redirections have been noticed between the links.
No reputed site would ask its users to share the campaign on WhatsApp.
The prize is kept really attractive to lure the laymen.
Grammatical mistakes have been noticed.
A congratulations message appears on the landing page with an attractive photo of Maruti Suzuki cars that asks users to participate in a quick survey in order to get a “Maruti Suzuki BALENO Sigma MT”. Also, the bottom of the page seems to appear like a comment section with public comments establishing the truthfulness of the offer.
The survey starts with some basic questions like Do you know Maruti Suzuki?, How old are you?, How do you think of Maruti Suzuki?, Are you male or female? Etc. Once the user answers the questions a “congratulatory message” is displayed.
On clicking the OK button users are given three attempts to win the prize. After completing all the attempts a message pops up that the user has won “Maruti Suzuki BALENO Sigma MT”. It then prompts the user to share the message on WhatsApp.
Strangely enough the user has to keep clicking the WhatsApp button until the progress bar completes. After clicking on the green ‘WhatsApp’ button multiple times it shows a section where an instruction has been given to complete registration in order to get the prize.
After clicking on the green ‘Complete registration’ button, it redirects the user to multiple advertisements web pages varying each time the user clicks on the button.
During the analysis the research team found a javascript code called hm.js was being executed in the background from the host hm[.]baidu[.]com which is a subdomain of Baidu and is used for Baidu Analytics, also known as Baidu Tongji. The important part is that Baidu is a Chinese multinational technology company specializing in Internet-related services, products and artificial intelligence, headquartered in Beijing’s Haidian district, China.To read the full report, please click (https://www.cyberpeace.org/CyberPeace/Repository/20210828Research-report-on-Maruti-Suzuki-40th-Anniversary-Celebration-free-gift-scam.pdf) here:
Conclusive Summary
1. The whole research activity was performed in a secured sandbox environment where the WhatsApp application was not installed. If any user opens the link from a device like smartphones where the WhatsApp application is installed, the sharing features on the site will open the Whatsapp application on the device to share the link.
2. The campaign collects browser and system information from the users.
3. Most of the domain names associated with the campaign have the registrant country as China.
4. Cybercriminals used Cloudflare technologies to mask the real IP addresses of the front-end domain names used in this Maruti Suzuki 40th Anniversary Celebration free gift campaign. But during the phases of investigation, the research team has identified a domain name that was requested in the background and has been traced as belonging to China.
CyberPeace Advisory
1. CyberPeace Foundation and Autobot Infosec recommend that people should avoid opening such messages sent via social platforms.
2. If at all, the user gets into this trap, it could lead to whole system compromise such as access to the microphone, Camera, Text Messages, Contacts, Pictures, Videos, Banking Applications, etc as well as financial losses.
3. Do not share confidential details like login credentials, banking information with such a type of scam.
4. Do not share or forward fake messages containing links without proper verification.
5. There is a need for International Cyber Cooperation between countries to bust the cybercriminal gangs running the fraud campaigns affecting individuals and organizations, to make Cyberspace resilient and peaceful.
