#FactCheck- Viral Image of Rescued U.S. Airman in Iran is AI-Generated

Artificial intelligence is growing at a rapid pace, with startups promising breakthroughs in industries and attracting billions in investment. Among these was Builder.ai, a London-based company founded in 2016 by an Indian entrepreneur. Once valued at over $1.5 billion, it was known for its game-changing platform that could let anyone build custom apps quickly and affordably with the help of AI.

Yet in 2025, Builder.ai collapsed dramatically, filing for bankruptcy across multiple countries and laying off nearly 80% of its workforce. What was once a celebrated unicorn has become a cautionary tale, exposing not only the risks of hype-driven growth in AI but also inflicting reputational damage on Indian founders in the global startup ecosystem.

The Rise: Big Promises, Big Investors

Builder.ai branded itself as a no-code/low-code app development platform, where its AI assistant “Natasha” would guide customers in creating apps without technical expertise. The pitch was simple and attractive: app development was made “as easy as ordering pizza.” The story resonated with major investors. Backed by SoftBank, Microsoft, and Qatar’s sovereign wealth fund, Builder.ai raised more than $450 million. It scaled rapidly, positioning itself as one of Europe’s most promising AI startups.

The Cracks Appear

Behind the glamour, the first cracks appeared as early as 2019, when The Wall Street Journal reported that Builder.ai’s platform depended far more on human engineers than on the AI automation it advertised. In reality, the much-hyped AI assistant “Natasha” was often just “a guy instead”, i.e., skilled developers in India manually writing code behind the scenes on whose backs the company expanded aggressively. 

The real blow came from Builder.ai’s finances. The company was accused of inflating revenue figures by 300%, with alleged use of round-tripping tactics involving fake invoices that inflated financials.  While it publicly projected revenues of $220 million in 2024, its actual figure was closer to $55 million. When this reality surfaced, investor confidence was lost quickly, and the company’s liabilities ballooned to nearly $100 million, with less than $ 10 million in assets remaining. 

Collapse and Legal Scrutiny

By 2025, the company’s foundations had crumbled. The founder stepped down as CEO but retained the unusual title of “Chief Wizard.” Massive debts to AWS, Microsoft, and other partners mounted into the hundreds of millions. Assets were seized, and the company filed for bankruptcy in the U.S., UK, India, and the UAE.

For clients, the collapse meant abandoned projects. For employees, around 1,000 of them, it meant sudden unemployment. And for investors, it was a devastating loss. The Securities and Exchange Commission and U.S. Attorney’s Office in New York have since launched investigations into potential fraud and investor misrepresentation.

Reputational Damage: Impact on Indian Founders

Perhaps the most enduring consequence of Builder.ai’s downfall is the hit to the credibility of Indian founders on the global stage.

For years, Indian entrepreneurs have earned trust in global tech circles, with leaders heading companies from Google to Microsoft. Indian-led startups abroad were viewed as reliable, innovative, and growth-driven. Builder.ai’s collapse disrupts this narrative.

The allegations of inflated revenue, AI exaggeration, and questionable governance risk reinforcing skepticism among global investors regarding Indian organisational ethics. For other Indian founders seeking international capital, the road has now become tougher: stricter due diligence, harsher scrutiny of claims, and slower trust-building.

This reputational damage arrives at a critical time when India is positioning itself as a global hub for AI and leads the world in AI skill penetration. Rather than highlighting the strength of India’s entrepreneurial and talent ecosystem, the fall of Builder.ai has drawn attention to the risks of overpromising and underdelivering.

Conclusion

The fall of Builder.ai is more than the bankruptcy of one AI unicorn. It is a warning to companies against chasing hyper growth fueled by the riding of the AI wave. While the company’s downfall exposed flaws in governance and accountability, its deeper impact lies in how it dented trust. To drive AI and technology innovation, startups must move beyond flashy valuations and commit to authentic innovation, transparency, and financial integrity.

References

• https://www.moodys.com/web/en/us/insights/lending/moodys-early-warning-in-action-builder-ai.html#:~:text=Despite%20marketing%20itself%20as%20an,fake%20invoices%20that%20inflated%20financials. 
• https://today-innovation.webflow.io/unveiling-the-power-of-natasha-an-ai-assistant-of-builder-ai-to-revolutionize-app-generation 
• https://finance.yahoo.com/news/builder-ais-shocking-450m-fall-170009323.html
• https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2108810 
• https://www.cnbctv18.com/technology/how-a-london-based-startups-artificial-ai-gambit-backfired-ws-l-19613692.htm# 

‍

Executive Summary:

‍
Following India’s heavy defeat to South Africa in the T20 World Cup 2026, the team has been facing intense trolling on social media. Amid this backdrop, a video of Indian cricket team head coach Gautam Gambhir has gone viral. In the clip, Gambhir can be heard saying,“Even people who have nothing to do with cricket have made comments. An IPL owner also wrote about split coaching. It’s surprising. People must stay in their own domain. If we don’t interfere in someone else’s domain, they have no right to interfere in ours.”The video is being shared with the claim that Gambhir made these remarks recently in response to trolling after India’s loss to South Africa in the T20 World Cup 2026. However, research by the CyberPeace found the claim to be misleading. The viral video is not related to the T20 World Cup 2026. It is from December 2025 and pertains to India’s Test series defeat against South Africa. An old video is being circulated with a misleading context.

‍

Claim

‍

An Instagram user, ‘rns_news200’, shared the viral video on February 23, 2026, claiming that after the loss to South Africa, head coach Gautam Gambhir issued a stern warning to Indian fans. The caption stated that Suryakumar Yadav was heavily trolled on social media after the match, and Gambhir responded strongly, saying players should not be unfairly targeted and the team deserves support, especially during difficult times.

• https://www.instagram.com/reels/DVF8zg7jBVd/
• https://archive.ph/bbCuG 

‍

Fact Check

‍

To verify the claim, we conducted a keyword search on Google. We found the same video on the official X (formerly Twitter) account of sports journalist Vikrant Gupta. The video was posted on December 7, 2025. According to the caption, Gambhir was expressing dissatisfaction following India’s performance.

• https://x.com/vikrantgupta73/status/1997389406777290815?s=20

‍

‍

We also found the longer version of the video on the official website of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), where it was published on December 6, 2025. In the full video, Gambhir is clearly seen speaking about India’s defeat to South Africa in a Test match. The specific segment that went viral appears around the 1 minute 58 second mark.

• https://www.bcci.tv/video/5567723/its-important-that-young-boys-are-grabbing-their-opportunities-gautam-gambhir 

Conclusion

‍

Our research  found that the viral claim about Gautam Gambhir’s video being linked to trolling after the T20 World Cup 2026 is misleading. The clip is from December 2025 and relates to India’s Test series defeat against South Africa — not the T20 World Cup 2026.An old video is being reshared with a false and misleading context.

‍

Introduction

Big Tech has been pushing back against regulatory measures, particularly regarding data handling practices. X Corp (formerly Twitter) has taken a prominent stance in India. The platform has filed a petition against the Central and State governments, challenging content-blocking orders and opposing the Center’s newly launched Sahyog portal.  The X Corp has furthermore labelled the Sahyog Portal as a 'censorship portal' that enables government agencies to issue blocking orders using a standardized template.

The key regulations governing the tech space in India include the IT Act of 2000,  IT Rules 2021 and 2023 (which stress platform accountability and content moderation), and the DPDP Act 2023, which intersects with personal data governance. This petition by the X Corp raises concerns for digital freedom, platform accountability, and the evolving regulatory frameworks in India. 

Elon Musk vs Indian Government: Key Issues at Stake

The 2021 IT Rules, particularly Rule 3(1)(d) of Part II, outline intermediaries' obligations regarding ‘Content Takedowns’. Intermediaries must remove or disable access to unlawful content within 36 hours of receiving a court order or government notification. Notably, the rules do not require government takedown requests to be explicitly in writing, raising concerns about potential misuse. 

X’s petition also focuses on the Sahyog Portal, a government-run platform that allows various agencies and state police to request content removal directly. They contend that the failure to comply with such orders can expose intermediaries' officers to prosecution. This has sparked controversy, with platforms like Elon Musk’s X arguing that such provisions grant the government excessive control, potentially undermining free speech and fostering undue censorship.

The broader implications include geopolitical tensions, potential business risks for big tech companies, and significant effects on India's digital economy, user engagement, and platform governance. Balancing regulatory compliance with digital rights remains a crucial challenge in this evolving landscape.

The Global Context: Lessons from Other Jurisdictions

The ‘EU's Digital Services Act’ establishes a baseline 'notice and takedown' system. According to the Act, hosting providers, including online platforms, must enable third parties to notify them of illegal content, which they must promptly remove to retain their hosting defence. The DSA also mandates expedited removal processes for notifications from trusted flaggers, user suspension for those with frequent violations, and enhanced protections for minors. Additionally, hosting providers have to adhere to specific content removal obligations, including the elimination of terrorist content within one hour and deploying technology to detect known or new CSAM material and remove it.

In contrast to the EU, the US First Amendment protects speech from state interference but does not extend to private entities. Dominant digital platforms, however, significantly influence discourse by moderating content, shaping narratives, and controlling advertising markets. This dual role creates tension as these platforms balance free speech, platform safety, and profitability.

India has adopted a model closer to the EU's approach, emphasizing content moderation to curb misinformation, false narratives, and harmful content. Drawing from the EU's framework, India could establish third-party notification mechanisms, enforce clear content takedown guidelines, and implement detection measures for harmful content like terrorist material and CSAM within defined timelines. This would balance content regulation with platform accountability while aligning with global best practices.

Key Concerns and Policy Debates

As the issue stands, the main concerns that arise are:

1. The need for transparency in government orders for takedowns, the reasons and a clear framework for why they are needed and the guidelines for doing so. 
2. The need for balancing digital freedom with national security and the concerns that arise out of it for tech companies. Essentially, the role platforms play in safeguarding the democratic values enshrined in the Constitution of India. 
3. This court ruling by the Karnataka HC will have the potential to redefine the principles upon which the intermediary guidelines function under the Indian laws. 

Potential Outcomes and the Way Forward

While we wait for the Hon’ble Court’s directives and orders in response to the filed suit, while the court's decision could favour either side or lead to a negotiated resolution, the broader takeaway is the necessity of collaborative policymaking that balances governmental oversight with platform accountability. This debate underscores the pressing need for a structured and transparent regulatory framework for content moderation. Additionally, this case also highlights the importance of due process in content regulation and the need for legal clarity for tech companies operating in India. Ultimately, a consultative and principles-based approach will be key to ensuring a fair and open digital ecosystem.

References

• https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/elon-musks-x-sues-union-government-over-alleged-censorship-and-it-act-violations/article69352961.ece
• https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/elon-musk-s-x-sues-union-government-over-alleged-censorship-and-it-act-violations-101742463516588.html
• https://www.financialexpress.com/life/technology-explainer-why-has-x-accused-govt-of-censorship-3788648/
• https://thelawreporters.com/elon-musk-s-x-sues-indian-government-over-alleged-censorship-and-it-act-violations ‍
• https://www.linklaters.com/en/insights/blogs/digilinks/2023/february/the-eu-digital-services-act---a-new-era-for-online-harms-and-intermediary-liability