#FactCheck:Fake letter attributed to Italian Embassy in India over alleged remarks by Rahul Gandhi

Introduction

According to Statista, the global artificial intelligence software market is forecast to grow by around 126 billion US dollars by 2025. This will include a 270% increase in enterprise adoption over the past four years. The top three verticals in the Al market are BFSI (Banking, Financial Services, and Insurance), Healthcare & Life Sciences, and Retail & e-commerce. These sectors benefit from vast data generation and the critical need for advanced analytics. Al is used for fraud detection, customer service, and risk management in BFSI; diagnostics and personalised treatment plans in healthcare; and retail marketing and inventory management.

The Chairperson of the Competition Commission of India’s Chief, Smt. Ravneet Kaur raised a concern that Artificial Intelligence has the potential to aid cartelisation by automating collusive behaviour through predictive algorithms. She explained that the mere use of algorithms cannot be anti-competitive but in case the algorithms are manipulated, then that is a valid concern about competition in markets.

This blog focuses on how policymakers can balance fostering innovation and ensuring fair competition in an AI-driven economy. 

What is the Risk Created by AI-driven Collusion?

AI uses predictive algorithms, and therefore, they could lead to aiding cartelisation by automating collusive behaviour. AI-driven collusion could be through:

• The use of predictive analytics to coordinate pricing strategies among competitors.
• The lack of human oversight in algorithm-induced decision-making leads to tacit collusion (competitors coordinate their actions without explicitly communicating or agreeing to do so).

AI has been raising antitrust concerns and the most recent example is the partnership between Microsoft and OpenAI, which has raised concerns among other national competition authorities regarding potential competition law issues. While it is expected that the partnership will potentially accelerate innovation, it also raises concerns about potential anticompetitive effects such as market foreclosure or the creation of barriers to entry for competitors and, therefore, has been under consideration in the German and UK courts. The problem here is in detecting and proving whether collusion is taking place. 

The Role of Policy and Regulation

The uncertainties induced by AI regarding its effects on competition create the need for algorithmic transparency and accountability in mitigating the risks of AI-driven collusion. It leads to the need to build and create regulatory frameworks that mandate the disclosure of algorithmic methodologies and establish a set of clear guidelines for the development of AI and its deployment. These frameworks or guidelines should encourage an environment of collaboration between competition watchdogs and AI experts. 

The global best practices and emerging trends in AI regulation already include respect for human rights, sustainability, transparency and strong risk management. The EU AI Act could serve as a model for other jurisdictions, as it outlines measures to ensure accountability and mitigate risks. The key goal is to tailor AI regulations to address perceived risks while incorporating core values such as privacy, non-discrimination, transparency, and security.

Promoting Innovation Without Stifling Competition

Policymakers need to ensure that they balance regulatory measures with innovation scope and that the two priorities do not hinder each other. 

1. Create adaptive and forward-thinking regulatory approaches to keep pace with technological advancements that take place at the pace of development and allow for quick adjustments in response to new AI capabilities and market behaviours.n
2. Competition watchdogs need to recruit domain experts to assess competition amid rapid changes in the technology landscape. Create a multi-stakeholder approach that involves regulators, industry leaders, technologists and academia who can create inclusive and ethical AI policies. 
3. Businesses can be provided incentives such as recognition through certifications, grants or benefits in acknowledgement of adopting ethical AI practices. 
4. Launch studies such as the CCI’s market study to study the impact of AI on competition. This can lead to the creation of a driving force for sustainable growth with technological advancements. 

Conclusion: AI and the Future of Competition

We must promote a multi-stakeholder approach that enhances regulatory oversight, and incentivising ethical AI practices. This is needed to strike a delicate balance that safeguards competition and drives sustainable growth. As AI continues to redefine industries, embracing collaborative, inclusive, and forward-thinking policies will be critical to building an equitable and innovative digital future. 

The lawmakers and policymakers engaged in the drafting of the frameworks need to ensure that they are adaptive to change and foster innovation. It is necessary to note that fair competition and innovation are not mutually exclusive goals, they are complementary to each other. Therefore, a regulatory framework that promotes transparency, accountability, and fairness in AI deployment must be established.

References

• https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/ai-has-potential-to-aid-cartelisation-fair-competition-integral-for-sustainable-growth-cci-chief/article69041922.ece 
• https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/artificial-intelligence-market-74851580.html 
• https://www.ey.com/en_in/insights/ai/how-to-navigate-global-trends-in-artificial-intelligence-regulation#:~:text=Six%20regulatory%20trends%20in%20Artificial%20Intelligence&text=These%20include%20respect%20for%20human,based%20approach%20to%20AI%20regulation. ‍
• https://www.business-standard.com/industry/news/ai-has-potential-to-aid-fair-competition-for-sustainable-growth-cci-chief-124122900221_1.html

Executive Summary:

The viral image in the social media which depicts fake injuries on the face of the MP(Member of Parliament, Lok Sabha) Kangana Ranaut alleged to have been beaten by a CISF officer at the Chandigarh airport. The reverse search of the viral image taken back to 2006, was part of an anti-mosquito commercial and does not feature the MP,  Kangana Ranaut. The findings contradict the claim that the photos are evidence of injuries resulting from the incident involving the MP, Kangana Ranaut. It is always important to verify the truthfulness of  visual content before sharing it, to prevent misinformation.

Claims:

The images circulating on social media platforms claiming the injuries on the MP, Kangana Ranaut’s face were because of an assault incident by a female CISF officer at Chandigarh airport. This claim hinted that the photos are evidence of the physical quarrel and resulting injuries suffered by  the MP, Kangana Ranaut.

‍

Fact Check:

When we received the posts, we reverse-searched the image and found another photo that looked similar to the viral one. We could verify through the earring in the viral image with the new image. 

The reverse image search revealed that the photo was originally uploaded in 2006 and is unrelated to the MP, Kangana Ranaut. It depicts a model in an advertisement for an anti-mosquito spray campaign.

We can validate this from the earrings in the photo after the comparison   between the two photos.

‍

Hence, we can confirm that the viral image of the injury mark of the MP, Kangana Ranaut has been debunked as fake and misleading, instead it has been cropped out from the original photo to misrepresent the context.

Conclusion:

Therefore, the viral photos on social media which claimed to be the results of injuries on the MP, Kangana Ranaut’s face after being assaulted allegedly by a CISF officer at the airport in Chandigarh were fake. Detailed analysis of the pictures provided the fact that the pictures have no connection with Ranaut; the picture was a 2006 anti-mosquito spray advertisement; therefore, the allegations that show these images as that of Ranaut’s injury are fake and misleading.

• Claim:  photos circulating on social media claiming to show injuries on the MP, Kangana Ranaut's face following an assault incident by a female CISF officer at Chandigarh airport.
• Claimed on: X (Formerly known as Twitter), thread, Facebook
• Fact Check: Fake & Misleading

‍

Executive Summary

‍
A viral social media post claims that the recently released Epstein files reveal that Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited Epstein Island more than 320 times. CyberPeace Research Wing research found that the claim is false. There is no evidence in the Epstein files suggesting that Prime Minister Modi visited Epstein Island over 320 times.

‍

Claim:

‍

An X user shared a viral graphic claiming that Prime Minister Narendra Modi had visited Epstein Island more than 320 times. https://x.com/Ramesh18498367/status/206501995913534715 , https://ghostarchive.org/archive/2V12W 

‍

Fact Check:

‍

We first examined credible international media reports related to the Epstein files, particularly those mentioning Prime Minister Narendra Modi. During this process, we found a report published by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) in February 2026. The report mentioned that the names of the Prime Ministers of India and Malaysia appeared in certain documents linked to the Epstein files. However, it clarified that references to Prime Minister Modi were limited to emails discussing his 2017 visit to Israel. The emails reportedly contained comments made by Jeffrey Epstein regarding the Prime Minister’s Israel visit. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-02-04/leaders-of-malaysia-india-named-in-epstein-files/106298458

‍

‍

We also reviewed reports published by several other international media organizations. None of them contained any information supporting the viral claim that Prime Minister Modi visited Epstein Island more than 320 times. The Government of India also issued a clarification regarding references to Prime Minister Modi in the Epstein files. The clarification stated that, apart from references to his 2017 Israel visit, the files contain no other mention of the Prime Minister. The government further described subsequent claims and speculation on the matter as baseless.

https://x.com/MEAIndia/status/2017598414733840649?s=20

‍

‍

Conclusion:

‍

The viral claim that the Epstein files reveal Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited Epstein Island more than 320 times is false. Available records, international media reports, and the Indian government's clarification do not support the claim.

‍