#FactCheck: Viral AI Video Showing Finance Minister of India endorsing an investment platform offering high returns.

Introduction

‍

Did you know that millions of workers today earn their livelihood through digital platforms such as Uber, Lyft, Deliveroo, Amazon Flex, Swiggy, and Zomato? The gig economy refers to a labour market in which individuals earn income through short term, temporary, task based, or freelance work arrangements rather than traditional long term employment. Most gig work is facilitated through digital platforms such as Uber, Lyft, Deliveroo, Amazon Flex, Swiggy, and Upwork, which connect workers directly with customers seeking specific services. While the gig economy has created unprecedented opportunities for flexible work, it has also exposed workers to challenges such as insecure employment, lack of social security, unfair pay, and algorithmic control. To address these concerns, the International Labour Organization adopted Convention No. 193, the world's first binding international treaty dedicated to platform workers. The Convention marks a significant step towards ensuring decent work in the digital age and is expected to guide nations in building stronger legal and social protection frameworks for the rapidly expanding gig economy.

‍

First Gig Economy Treaty at Glance
‍

On June 12, 2026, the course of global labor governance took a decisive turn when, at its 114th International Labour Conference in Geneva, the ILO finally ratified the Decent Work in the Platform Economy Convention (ILO Convention No. 193) with a vote of 406-8-36. This first-ever binding instrument setting labor standards for digital platform/gig workers represents the product of a lengthy multi-year debate leading to an international understanding that labor law itself had to be redefined to apply to the digital age. The Convention sought to fill a regulatory gap in which "corporation power, algorithmic governance, work informality, and workers’ rightlessness defined the space."

‍

The Genesis: How the Convention Came to Be

‍

The negotiations of ILO Convention No. 193 were long, complex, and controversial. The systematic ILO attention on the gig economy was started during the beginning of the 2010s as on-demand app-based models provided by Uber, Lyft, Deliveroo, Amazon Flex, etc., began to transform the labor market fundamentally. The problem concerned is mass misclassification of workers.

Labeling platform workers as "independent contractors," as opposed to "employees," allows digital platforms to escape many standard labor law obligations such as minimum wage standards, social security benefits, health and safety standards, and the right to organize and bargain collectively.

Calls for international action escalated with the growth of the gig economy. 435 million people in the world were active in online gig work as of 2023, based on the World Bank Report. The platform work was added to the agenda of the ILO Governing Body in 2023. In 2024, a questionnaire was sent to member States and social partners and compiled into Report V(2): Realizing decent work in the platform economy (February 2025).

A decisive turning point occurred at the 113th International Labour Conference in June 2025 when, despite objections from employer representatives and governments like the United States, India, and Switzerland, delegates agreed to adopt both a binding Convention and a Recommendation on the issue. 

A Standard-Setting Committee then produced a draft instrument throughout 2025 and early 2026. The committee's text was adopted by the committee on June 11, 2026, and by the conference plenary the following day. Civil society groups, including Privacy International and Human Rights Watch, played a role in the process through their recommendations regarding algorithmic governance, data privacy, and inclusive coverage.

‍

Scope and Definitional Framework

‍

The most important and contentious aspect of the Convention is its scope. The text defines "digital labour platforms" as being covered, as well as "all digital platform workers… whether in the formal or informal economy. "It is designed this way precisely because previous attempts at regulating platforms, such as the 2024 EU Platform Work Directive, which was weakened considerably by the Council's final approval, were narrow and open to carve-outs. "Digital platform worker," according to Convention No. 193, is defined as "a person who is in employment or engaged in work for the provision of a service organised and/or mediated by a digital labour platform." It makes no distinction regarding employee status, thereby evading the definitional trap that allowed platforms to deny responsibility by defining workers as self-employed. The platforms covered in the Convention include location-based (food delivery, ride-hailing, domestic care, and construction services) and online/cloud-based platforms (data annotation, content moderation, creative freelancing, and software development).

‍

Key Substantive Provisions

‍

1. Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work :Convention 193 requires each state that ratifies it to make arrangements to "respect, promote, and realise" these fundamental principles and rights at work, which under the 1998 ILO Declaration were identified as freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining; the elimination of forced or compulsory labour; the abolition of child labour and the elimination of discrimination in employment and occupation. The question of collective bargaining rights is especially important since digital platforms have not in the past been willing to accept unions and bargaining processes, claiming that since those who work on the platform are classified as independent contractors, they do not have the right to bargain collectively.

2. Fair Pay and Parity of Treatment :The Convention enshrines equal pay and treatment for gig workers: "not less favorable conditions than those offered to workers of the same employment status classification." This has the aim of remedying the two-tier system maintained by a number of digital platforms, where workers performing the equivalent job role of employees are provided with considerably lower remuneration, lacking the benefits, stability, and protection afforded to employees under statutory labor law.

3. Transparency and Algorithmic Accountability:One of the most innovative features of Convention 193 is its attempt to tackle algorithmic management. Digital platforms must supply information about the terms of the working relationship in a manner that is "timely, verifiable, and easily accessible and comprehensible" and, "in all cases prior to any significant changes," must disclose how automated systems allocate work, set pay, and determine termination decisions. Civil society organisations, such as Privacy International and Human Rights Watch, sought to make algorithmic control, including human oversight over automated decisions to impose disciplinary sanctions, legally binding. While the final provision fell short of doing so, it represents a new standard for algorithmic transparency in international labour law.

4. Occupational Safety and Health :Each member state will be required to take steps to prevent occupational accidents, diseases, and injuries "affecting platform workers." For location-based gig workers, such as delivery and ride-hailing drivers who are repeatedly placed in hazardous and unstable work environments, this provision is vital in addressing what is frequently referred to as a 'silent crisis' within the platform economy, as workers are often ineligible for statutory workplace injury coverage and compensation schemes.

5. Social Security Access:Possibly the most significant structural reform the Convention seeks to bring about, gig workers will have a right to access social security (including medical coverage, sick pay, and retirement and maternity/parental/sick benefits), which they have been able to bypass on the grounds of independent contractor status. For decades, digital platforms have lowered labor costs by externalizing the costs of social insurance onto gig workers themselves or public welfare systems. Convention 193 attempts to render that strategy illegal under international law.

6. Protection for migrant and refugee workers :There are provisions protecting migrant and refugee platform workers and ensuring rights and protection throughout the life cycle of work, covering recruitment to employment and providing protection against discrimination. Migrant workers are over-represented among those employed in low-paid and informal gig work, where they face the highest risks of exploitation and deteriorating work conditions.

7. Dispute resolution: Convention 193 establishes for platform workers the right to effective and impartial complaint and dispute resolution procedures as well as appropriate remedies, meaning when a country ratifies and domesticates the convention, workers will be empowered to pursue direct claims against digital platforms, overcoming the traditional obstacles placed in the way of such action.

‍

Enforcement Architecture and Its Limitations

‍

Despite the convention's potential, it is subject to key difficulties in implementation. The ILO does not have the enforcement power of the World Trade Organization, and simply ratifying a Convention does not automatically give domestic law effects. Countries must integrate the Convention into their national legislation, and ratifying members are not bound to implement it until 12 months after the Convention is ratified, which has also required two ratifications for entry into force. The Convention has optional provisions excluding the scope, where the argument is for the need of flexibility in the varied labour markets. While the International Trade Union Confederation, in reaction to the exclusions, has argued that large numbers of workers could be out of its protection, the countries that resort to the exceptions have to give a justification for this practice. The enforcement of the Convention is largely a matter of political will. Countries that, like the United States, voted against the Convention, will certainly choose not to ratify and implement it in their own legal system, leaving the gig workers out of its scope.

‍

Geopolitical and Comparative Context

‍

Convention No. 193 did not arise in a vacuum. There has been a trend of national governments regulating platform work in various ways. Spain's Riders' Law (2021) provided for a legal presumption of employment for delivery riders, while the UK Supreme Court ruled that Uber drivers are workers in 2021, entitling them to minimum wage and holidays. The French Constitutional Council (2020) found platform worker charter clauses consistent with rights. Some Indian states have promoted registration for gig workers for social security purposes (though national legislation is still needed). Convention No. 193 standardises these varied efforts through international normative agreement and particularly helps lower-income states lacking capacity or power against global platforms.

‍

Conclusion

‍

While ILO Convention No. 193 represents a momentous milestone for platform workers, the true impact of the Convention rests on ratification, domestic legislation, and judicial enforcement, alongside consistent vigilance on the part of the trade unions and civil society. Its most significant accomplishment to date is the establishment of a new international norm: for the first time, it establishes under international law that the labor rights of platform and gig workers are state responsibilities, not discretionary private undertakings by companies, a fact made urgently necessary by the growing strength of platform power.

‍

References

‍

1. https://www.ilo.org/resource/conference-paper/ilc/113/draft-resolution-and-proposed-conclusions-standard-setting-committee-decent
2. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/6/12/un-adopts-treaty-setting-standards-for-gig-economy-workers
3. https://www.ilo.org/node/697106
4. https://www.europeanpapers.eu/e-journal/decent-work-gig-economy-appraisal-eu-ilo-regulation-digital-labour-platforms
5. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/world-news/worlds-fi
6. https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2026/06/14/2003859085

‍

Introduction

In this ever-evolving world of technology, cybercrimes and criminals continue to explore new and innovative methods to exploit and intimidate their victims. One of the recent shocking incidents has been reported from the city of Bharatpur, Rajasthan, where the cyber crooks organised a mock court session This complex operation, meant to induce fear and force obedience, exemplifies the daring and intelligence of modern hackers. In this blog article, we’ll go deeper into this concerning occurrence, delving into it to offer light on the strategies used and the ramifications for cybersecurity.to frighten their targets.

The Setup

The case was reported from Gopalgarh village in Bharatpur, Rajasthan, and has unfolded with a shocking twist -the father-son duo, Tahir Khan and his son Talim Khano — from Gopalgarh village in Bharatpur, Rajasthan, has been fooling people to gain their monetary gain by staging a mock court setting and recorded the proceedings to intimidate their victims into paying hefty sums. In the recent case, they have gained 2.69 crores through sextortion. the duo uses to trace their targets on social media platforms, blackmail them, and earn a hefty amount.

An official complaint was filed by a 69-year-old victim who was singled out through his social media accounts, his friends, and his posts Initially, they contacted the victim with a pre-recorded video featuring a nude woman, coaxing him into a compromising situation. As officials from the Delhi Crime Branch and the CBI, they threatened the victim, claiming that a girl had approached them intending to file a complaint against him. Later, masquerading as YouTubers, they threatened to release the incriminating video online. Adding to the charade, they impersonated a local MLA and presented the victim with a forged stamp paper alleging molestation charges. Eventually, posing as Delhi Crime Branch officials again, they demanded money to settle the case after falsely stating that they had apprehended the girl. To further manipulate the victim, the accused staged a court proceeding, recording it and subsequently sending it to him, creating the illusion that everything was concluded. This unique case of sextortion stands out as the only instance where the culprits went to such lengths, staging and recording a mock court to extort money.  Furthermore, it was discovered that the accused had fabricated a letter from the Delhi High Court, adding another layer of deception to their scheme.

The Investigation

The complaint was made in a cyber cell. After the complaint was filed, the investigation was made, and it was found that this case stands as one of the most significant sextortion incidents in the country. The father-son pair skillfully assumed five different roles, meticulously executing their plan, which included creating a simulated court environment. “We have also managed to recover Rs 25 lakh from the accused duo—some from their residence in Gopalgarh and the rest from the bank account where it was deposited.

The Tricks used by the duo
The father-son The setup in the fake court scene event was a meticulously built web of deception to inspire fear and weakness in the victim. Let’s look at the tricks the two used to fool the people.

• Social Engineering strategies: Cyber criminals are skilled at using social engineering strategies to acquire the trust of their victims. In this situation, they may have employed phishing emails or phone calls to get personal information about the victim. By appearing as respectable persons or organisations, the crooks tricked the victim into disclosing vital information, giving them weapons they needed to create a sense of trustworthiness.
• Making a False Narrative: To make the fictitious court scenario more credible, the cyber hackers concocted a captivating story based on the victim’s purported legal problems. They might have created plausible papers to give their plan authority, such as forged court summonses, legal notifications, or warrants. They attempted to create a sense of impending danger and an urgent necessity for the victim to comply with their demands by deploying persuasive language and legal jargon.
• Psychological Manipulation: The perpetrators of the fictitious court scenario were well aware of the power of psychological manipulation in coercing their victims. They hoped to emotionally overwhelm the victim by using fear, uncertainty, and the possible implications of legal action. The offenders probably used threats of incarceration, fines, or public exposure to increase the victim’s fear and hinder their capacity to think critically. The idea was to use desperation and anxiety to force the victim to comply.
• Use of Technology to Strengthen Deception: Technological advancements have given cyber thieves tremendous tools to strengthen their misleading methods. The simulated court scenario might have included speech modulation software or deep fake technology to impersonate the voices or appearances of legal experts, judges, or law enforcement personnel. This technology made the deception even more believable, blurring the border between fact and fiction for the victim.

The use of technology in cybercriminals’ misleading techniques has considerably increased their capacity to fool and influence victims. Cybercriminals may develop incredibly realistic and persuasive simulations of judicial processes using speech modulation software, deep fake technology, digital evidence alteration, and real-time communication tools. Individuals must be attentive, gain digital literacy skills, and practice critical thinking when confronting potentially misleading circumstances online as technology advances. Individuals can better protect themselves against the expanding risks posed by cyber thieves by comprehending these technological breakthroughs.

What to do?

Seeking Help and Reporting Incidents: If you or anyone you know is the victim of cybercrime or is fooled by cybercrooks. When confronted with disturbing scenarios such as the imitation court scene staged by cybercrooks, victims must seek help and act quickly by reporting the occurrence. Prompt reporting serves various reasons, including increasing awareness, assisting with investigations, and preventing similar crimes from occurring again. Victims should take the following steps:

• Contact your local law enforcement: Inform local legal enforcement about the cybercrime event. Provide them with pertinent incident facts and proof since they have the experience and resources to investigate cybercrime and catch the offenders involved.
• Seek Assistance from a Cybersecurity specialist: Consult a cybersecurity specialist or respected cybersecurity business to analyse the degree of the breach, safeguard your digital assets, and obtain advice on minimising future risks. Their knowledge and forensic analysis can assist in gathering evidence and mitigating the consequences of the occurrence.
• Preserve Evidence: Keep any evidence relating to the event, including emails, texts, and suspicious actions. Avoid erasing digital evidence, and consider capturing screenshots or creating copies of pertinent exchanges. Evidence preservation is critical for investigations and possible legal procedures.

Conclusion

The setting fake court scene event shows how cybercriminals would deceive and abuse their victims. These criminals tried to use fear and weakness in the victim through social engineering methods, the fabrication of a false narrative, the manipulation of personal information, psychological manipulation, and the use of technology. Individuals can better defend themselves against cybercrooks by remaining watchful and sceptical.

Executive Summary

Following the flash floods that struck the Nepal-Tibet border on Wednesday morning, 289 bodies have so far been recovered, while around 1,500 people remain missing. A large number of foreign nationals, along with Nepali citizens, are also among those reported missing. Meanwhile, a video showing a massive landslide is being widely circulated on social media. The viral clip is actually a compilation of two separate videos. The first shows a landslide rapidly turning into a torrent of muddy floodwater, while the second shows a two-storey house on a riverbank being swept away by rising floodwaters. A research done by the Research Wing of the CyberPeace found that both videos are old and unrelated to Nepal. The first video is from Myanmar, while the second was recorded in the United States.

‍

Claim:

A user on social media platform Facebook shared the video, claiming that it shows the initial scenes of the devastating floods and landslides that struck Nepal.

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1572666177989617 

‍

‍

Fact Check:

To verify the first video, we conducted a reverse image search of its keyframes. During the search, we found a longer version of the same footage, which was shared on an Instagram account on June 30. This confirmed that the viral clip is unrelated to the recent floods in Nepal.

https://www.instagram.com/reels/DaLtKtjzTtq/ 

‍

‍

During the research, we also found the full version of the video on a YouTube channel, where it was uploaded on January 28, 2024. Although the video caption did not clearly specify the location of the incident, it mentioned Myanmar several times. This confirms that the viral video is old footage from Myanmar and not related to the recent disaster in Nepal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_z2_IEqOBNg&t=3s 

‍

‍

We found another report, published on January 25, 2024, that carried screenshots from the viral footage. It stated that the incident took place between January 24 and 25, 2024, in Myanmar’s Hpakant mining area. Further verification led us to a report published by EOS.org, the digital science news outlet of the American Geophysical Union. The report examined the incident by comparing Planet Labs satellite imagery captured before and after the event, providing further evidence about the location of the incident.

https://www.geoengineer.org/news/mine-waste-dam-failure-in-myanmar-caught-on-video

‍

‍

https://eos.org/thelandslideblog/myanmar-1 

‍

‍

Second Clip

For the second clip, a reverse image search of its keyframes led us to a CBC report dated June 14, 2022, which carried a photograph of the same two-storey house seen in the viral footage. The report identified the location as Gardiner, Montana, USA, where the Yellowstone River experienced severe flooding and a rapid rise in water levels. It also stated that the house belonged to Parker Manning, who recorded the footage himself while vacationing with his family at a spot roughly half a mile upstream from the house.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/yellowstone-flooding-video-house-collapses-river/ 

‍

‍

We also found a post related to the viral video on FOX 61, where the footage was shared with a generic caption. The link to the post and a screenshot are provided below.

‍

‍

Conclusion

Our research found that both videos are old and unrelated to Nepal. The first video is from Myanmar, while the second is from the United States.

‍