#FactCheck -AI-Generated Video Falsely Shows Sachin Tendulkar Promoting Investment Scheme
Executive Summary
A video featuring former Indian cricketer Sachin Tendulkar is being widely circulated on social media with the date “12-5-2026” displayed on the screen. In the viral clip, Tendulkar appears to promote an investment scheme, allegedly saying that people investing in the scheme today could earn Rs 80 lakh by the end of the day. Throughout the video, he is seen speaking about investment opportunities and financial returns. However, research conducted by CyberPeace Research Wing found that the video is AI-generated and misleading. The original footage was actually from an event marking the centenary celebrations of Sri Sathya Sai Baba.
Claim
A Facebook user shared the viral video on May 12, 2026, claiming that Sachin Tendulkar was endorsing a high-return investment scheme. The post quickly gained traction on social media platforms.
Fact Check
To verify the claim, we searched the internet using relevant keywords but found no credible media reports suggesting that Tendulkar had endorsed any such investment scheme. As part of our research, we extracted key frames from the viral clip and conducted a reverse image search. During the search, we found the original video uploaded on November 19, 2025, on the YouTube channel of IANS. According to the video description, Tendulkar was attending an event organized to mark the centenary year celebrations of Sri Sathya Sai Baba.
We further found a similar version of the same video uploaded on November 19, 2025, on the official Facebook page of Times Now, confirming that the footage was unrelated to any investment or financial scheme.
Conclusion
Our research found that the viral video has been manipulated using AI-generated audio or editing techniques to falsely portray Sachin Tendulkar promoting an investment scheme. The original video was from a public event related to Sri Sathya Sai Baba’s centenary celebrations and had no connection to any financial investment platform.
Related Blogs
.webp)
Introduction
Search engines have become indispensable in our daily lives, allowing us to find information instantly by entering keywords or phrases. Using the prompt "search Google or type a URL" reflects just how seamless this journey to knowledge has become. With millions of searches conducted every second, and Google handling over 6.3 million searches per minute as of 2023 (Statista), one critical question arises: do search engines prioritise results based on user preferences and past behaviours, or are they truly unbiased?
Understanding AI Bias in Search Algorithms
AI bias is also known as machine learning bias or algorithm bias. It refers to the occurrence of biased results due to human biases that deviate from the original training data or AI algorithm which leads to distortion of outputs and creation of potentially harmful outcomes. The sources of this bias are algorithmic bias, data bias and interpretation bias which emerge from user history, geographical data, and even broader societal biases in training data.
Common biases include excluding certain groups of people from opportunities because of AI bias. In healthcare, underrepresenting data of women or minority groups can skew predictive AI algorithms. While AI helps streamline the automation of resume scanning during a search to help identify ideal candidates, the information requested and answers screened out can result in biased outcomes due to a biased dataset or any other bias in the input data.
Case in Point: Google’s "Helpful" Results and Its Impact
Google optimises results by analysing user interactions to determine satisfaction with specific types of content. This data-driven approach forms ‘filter bubbles’ by repeatedly displaying content that aligns with a user’s preferences, regardless of factual accuracy. While this can create a more personalised experience, it risks confining users to a limited view, excluding diverse perspectives or alternative viewpoints.
The personal and societal impacts of such biases are significant. At an individual level, filter bubbles can influence decision-making, perceptions, and even mental health. On a societal level, these biases can reinforce stereotypes, polarise opinions, and shape collective narratives. There is also a growing concern that these biases may promote misinformation or limit users’ exposure to diverse perspectives, all stemming from the inherent bias in search algorithms.
Policy Challenges and Regulatory Measures
Regulating emerging technologies like AI, especially in search engine algorithms, presents significant challenges due to their intricate, proprietary nature. Traditional regulatory frameworks struggle to keep up with them as existing laws were not designed to address the nuances of algorithm-driven platforms. Regulatory bodies are pushing for transparency and accountability in AI-powered search algorithms to counter biases and ensure fairness globally. For example, the EU’s Artificial Intelligence Act aims to establish a regulatory framework that will categorise AI systems based on risk and enforces strict standards for transparency, accountability, and fairness, especially for high-risk AI applications, which may include search engines. India has proposed the Digital India Act in 2023 which will define and regulate High-risk AI.
Efforts include ethical guidelines emphasising fairness, accountability, and transparency in information prioritisation. However, a complex regulatory landscape could hinder market entrants, highlighting the need for adaptable, balanced frameworks that protect user interests without stifling innovation.
CyberPeace Insights
In a world where search engines are gateways to knowledge, ensuring unbiased, accurate, and diverse information access is crucial. True objectivity remains elusive as AI-driven algorithms tend to personalise results based on user preferences and past behaviour, often creating a biased view of the web. Filter bubbles, which reinforce individual perspectives, can obscure factual accuracy and limit exposure to diverse viewpoints. Addressing this bias requires efforts from both users and companies. Users should diversify sources and verify information, while companies should enhance transparency and regularly audit algorithms for biases. Together, these actions can promote a more equitable, accurate, and unbiased search experience for all users.
References
- https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20241101-how-online-photos-and-videos-alter-the-way-you-think
- https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20241031-how-google-tells-you-what-you-want-to-hear
- https://www.ibm.com/topics/ai-bias#:~:text=In%20healthcare%2C%20underrepresenting%20data%20of,can%20skew%20predictive%20AI%20algorithms
Introduction
In today’s digital era, warfare is being redefined. Defence Minister Rajnath Singh recently stated that “we are in the age of Grey Zone and hybrid warfare where cyber-attacks, disinformation campaigns and economic warfare have become tools to achieve politico-military aims without a single shot being fired.” The crippling cyberattacks on Estonia in 2007, Russia’s interference in the 2016 US elections, and the ransomware strike on the Colonial Pipeline in the United States in 2021 all demonstrate how states are now using cyberspace to achieve strategic goals while carefully circumventing the threshold of open war.
Legal Complexities: Attribution, Response, and Accountability
Grey zone warfare challenges the traditional notions of security and international conventions on peace due to inherent challenges such as :
- Attribution
The first challenge in cyber warfare is determining who is responsible. Threat actors hide behind rented botnets, fake IP addresses, and servers scattered across the globe. Investigators can follow digital trails, but those trails often point to machines, not people. That makes attribution more of an educated guess than a certainty. A wrong guess could lead to misattribution of blame, which could beget a diplomatic crisis, or worse, a military one. - Proportional Response
Even if attribution is clear, designing a response can be a challenge. International law does give room for countermeasures if they are both ‘necessary’ and ‘proportionate’. But defining these qualifiers can be a long-drawn, contested process. Effectively, governments employ softer measures such as protests or sanctions, tighten their cyber defences or, in extreme cases, strike back digitally. - Accountability
States can be held responsible for waging cyber attacks under the UN’s Draft Articles on State Responsibility. But these are non-binding and enforcement depends on collective pressure, which can be slow and inconsistent. In cyberspace, accountability often ends up being more symbolic than real, leaving plenty of room for repeat offences.
International and Indian Legal Frameworks
Cyber law is a step behind cyber warfare since existing international frameworks are often inadequate. For example, the Tallinn Manual 2.0, the closest thing we have to a rulebook for cyber conflict, is just a set of guidelines. It says that if a cyber operation can be tied to a state, even through hired hackers or proxies, then that state can be held responsible. But attribution is a major challenge. Similarly, the United Nations has tried to build order through its Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) that promotes norms like “don’t attack. However, these norms are not binding, effectively leaving practice to diplomacy and trust.
India is susceptible to routine attacks from hostile actors, but does not yet have a dedicated cyber warfare law. While Section 66F of the IT ACT, 2000, talks about cyber terrorism, and Section 75 lets Indian courts examine crimes committed abroad if they impact India, grey-zone tactics like fake news campaigns, election meddling, and influence operations fall into a legal vacuum.
Way Forward
- Strengthen International Cooperation
Frameworks like the Tallinn Manual 2.0 can form the basis for future treaties. Bilateral and multilateral agreements between countries are essential to ensure accountability and cooperation in tackling grey zone activities. - Develop Grey Zone Legislation
India currently relies on the IT Act, 2000, but this law needs expansion to specifically cover grey zone tactics such as election interference, propaganda, and large-scale disinformation campaigns. - Establish Active Monitoring Systems
India must create robust early detection systems to identify grey zone operations in cyberspace. Agencies can coordinate with social media platforms like Instagram, Facebook, X (Twitter), and YouTube, which are often exploited for propaganda and disinformation, to improve monitoring frameworks. - Dedicated Theatre Commands for Cyber Operations
Along with the existing Defence Cyber Agency, India should consider specialised theatre commands for grey zone and cyber warfare. This would optimise resources, enhance coordination, and ensure unified command in dealing with hybrid threats.
Conclusion
Grey zone warfare in cyberspace is no longer an optional tactic used by threat actors but a routine activity. India lacks the early detection systems, robust infrastructure, and strong cyber laws to counter grey-zone warfare. To counter this, India needs sharper attribution tools for early detection and must actively push for stronger international rules in this global landscape. More importantly, instead of merely blaming without clear plans, India should focus on preparing for solid retaliation strategies. By doing so, India can also learn to use cyberspace strategically to achieve politico-military aims without firing a single shot.
References
- Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations (Michael N. Schmitt)
- UN Document on International Law in Cyberspace (UN Digital Library)
- NATO Cyber Defence Policy
- Texas Law Review: State Responsibility and Attribution of Cyber Intrusions
- Deccan Herald: Defence Minister on Grey Zone Warfare
- VisionIAS: Grey Zone Warfare
- Sachin Tiwari, The Reality of Cyber Operations in the Grey Zone
.webp)
Introduction
India's Competition Commission of India (CCI) on 18th November 2024 imposed a ₹213 crore penalty on Meta for abusing its dominant position in internet-based messaging through WhatsApp and online display advertising. The CCI order is passed against abuse of dominance by the Meta and relates to WhatsApp’s 2021 Privacy Policy. The CCI considers Meta a dominant player in internet-based messaging through WhatsApp and also in online display advertising. WhatsApp's 2021 privacy policy update undermined users' ability to opt out of getting their data shared with the group's social media platform Facebook. The CCI directed WhatsApp not to share user data collected on its platform with other Meta companies or products for advertising purposes for five years.
CCI Contentions
The regulator contended that for purposes other than advertising, WhatsApp's policy should include a detailed explanation of the user data shared with other Meta group companies or products specifying the purpose. The regulator also stated that sharing user data collected on WhatsApp with other Meta companies or products for purposes other than providing WhatsApp services should not be a condition for users to access WhatsApp services in India. CCI order is significant as it upholds user consent as a key principle in the functioning of social media giants, similar to the measures taken by some other markets.
Meta’s Stance
WhatsApp parent company Meta has expressed its disagreement with the Competition Commission of India's(CCI) decision to impose a Rs 213 crore penalty on them over users' privacy concerns. Meta clarified that the 2021 update did not change the privacy of people's personal messages and was offered as a choice for users at the time. It also ensured no one would have their accounts deleted or lose functionality of the WhatsApp service because of this update.
Meta clarified that the update was about introducing optional business features on WhatsApp and providing further transparency about how they collect data. The company stated that WhatsApp has been incredibly valuable to people and businesses, enabling organization's and government institutions to deliver citizen services through COVID and beyond and supporting small businesses, all of which further the Indian economy. Meta plans to find a path forward that allows them to continue providing the experiences that "people and businesses have come to expect" from them. The CCI issued cease-and-desist directions and directed Meta and WhatsApp to implement certain behavioral remedies within a defined timeline.
The competition watchdog noted that WhatsApp's 2021 policy update made it mandatory for users to accept the new terms, including data sharing with Meta, and removed the earlier option to opt-out, categorized as an "unfair condition" under the Competition Act. It was further noted that WhatsApp’s sharing of users’ business transaction information with Meta gave the group entities an unfair advantage over competing platforms.
CyberPeace Outlook
The 2021 policy update by WhatsApp mandated data sharing with Meta's other companies group, removing the opt-out option and compelling users to accept the terms to continue using the platform. This policy undermined user autonomy and was deemed as an abuse of Meta's dominant market position, violating Section 4(2)(a)(i) of the Competition Act, as noted by CCI.
The CCI’s ruling requires WhatsApp to offer all users in India, including those who had accepted the 2021 update, the ability to manage their data-sharing preferences through a clear and prominent opt-out option within the app. This decision underscores the importance of user choice, informed consent, and transparency in digital data policies.
By addressing the coercive nature of the policy, the CCI ruling establishes a significant legal precedent for safeguarding user privacy and promoting fair competition. It highlights the growing acknowledgement of privacy as a fundamental right and reinforces the accountability of tech giants to respect user autonomy and market fairness. The directive mandates that data sharing within the Meta ecosystem must be based on user consent, with the option to decline such sharing without losing access to essential services.
References
