#FactCheck - AI-Generated Video Falsely Linked to Protests in Iran

Executive Summary:

A viral video that has gone viral is purportedly of mass cheating during the UPSC Civil Services Exam conducted in Uttar Pradesh. This video claims to show students being filmed cheating by copying answers. But, when we  did a thorough research, it was noted that the incident happened during an LLB exam, not the UPSC Civil Services Exam. This is a representation of misleading content being shared to promote misinformation.

Claim: 

‍

Mass cheating took place during the UPSC Civil Services Exam in Uttar Pradesh, as shown in a viral video.

‍

‍

Fact Check:

Upon careful verification, it has been established that the viral video being circulated does not depict the UPSC Civil Services Examination, but rather an incident of mass cheating during an LLB examination. Reputable media outlets, including Zee News and India Today, have confirmed that the footage is from a law exam and is unrelated to the UPSC.

The video in question was reportedly live-streamed by one of the LLB students, held in February 2024  at City Law College in Lakshbar Bajha, located in the Safdarganj area of Barabanki, Uttar Pradesh.

The misleading attempt to associate this footage with the highly esteemed Civil Services Examination is not only factually incorrect but also unfairly casts doubt on a process that is known for its rigorous supervision and strict security protocols. It is crucial to verify the authenticity and context of such content before disseminating it, in order to uphold the integrity of our institutions and prevent unnecessary public concern.

‍

‍

Conclusion:

‍

The viral video purportedly showing mass cheating during the UPSC Civil Services Examination in Uttar Pradesh is misleading and not genuine. Upon verification, the footage has been found to be from an LLB examination, not related to the UPSC in any manner. Spreading such misinformation not only undermines the credibility of a trusted examination system but also creates unwarranted panic among aspirants and the public. It is imperative to verify the authenticity of such claims before sharing them on social media platforms. Responsible dissemination of information is crucial to maintaining trust and integrity in public institutions.

• Claim: A viral video shows UPSC candidates copying answers.
• Claimed On: Social Media
• Fact Check: False and Misleading

The recent Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025, that came into force in August, has been one of the most widely anticipated regulations in the digital entertainment industry. Among provisions such as promoting esports and licensing of online gaming, the legislation notably introduces a blanket ban on real-money gaming (RMG). The rationale behind this was to reduce its addictive effects, protect minors, and limit the circulation of black-money. However, in reality, the Act has spawned apprehension about the legislative process, regulatory redundancy, and unintended consequences that can shift users and revenue to offshore operators.

‍

From Debate to Prohibition: How the Act was Passed 

‍

The Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act was passed as a central law, providing the earlier fragmented state laws on online betting and gambling with an overarching framework. Proponents argue that, among other provisions, some kind of unified national framework was needed to deal with the scale of online betting due to its detrimental impact on young users. The current Act is a direct transition to criminalisation rather than the swings of self-regulation and partial restrictions used during the previous decade of incremental experiments in regulation. Stakeholders in the industry believe that this type of sudden, blanket action creates uncertainty and erodes confidence in the system in the long run. Further, critics have pointed out that the Bill was passed without adequate Parliamentary deliberation. A question has been raised about whether procedural safeguards were upheld. 

‍

Prohibition of Online RMG

‍

Within the Indian context, a distinction has long been drawn between games of skill and games of chance, with the latter, like a lottery or a casino, being severely prohibited under state laws, whereas the former, like rummy or fantasy sports, have generally been allowed after being recognized as skill-based by court authorities. The Online Gaming Act of 2025 abolishes this distinction on the internet, thus banning all RMG actions that include cash transactions, regardless of skill or chance. The act also criminalises the advertising, facilitation, and hosting of such sites, thereby penalizing offshore operators with an Indian customer focus, and subjecting their payment gateways, app stores, and advertisers under its jurisdiction to penalties. 

‍

The Problem of Overlap

‍

One potential issue that the Act presents is its overlap with the existing laws. The IT Rules 2023 mandate intermediaries in the gaming sector to appoint compliance officers, submit monthly reports, and undergo due diligence. The new Act introduces a three-level classification of games, whereas the advisories of the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) under the Consumer Protection Act treat online betting as an unfair trade practice. 

This multiplicity of regulations builds a maze where different Ministries and state governments have overlapping jurisdiction.  Policy experts caution that such an overlap can create enforcement challenges, punish players who act within the law, and leave offshore malefactors undetected.  

‍

Unintended Consequences: Driving Users Offshore

‍

Outright prohibition will hardly ever remove demand; it will only push it out. Offshore sites have taken advantage of the situation as Indian operators like Dream11 shut down their money games after the ban. It has already been reported that there is aggressive advertising by foreign betting companies that are not registered in India, most of which have backend infrastructure that cannot be regulated by the Act (Storyboard18).

This diversion of users to unregulated markets has two main risks. First, Indian players are deprived of the consumer protection offered to them in local regulation, and their data can be sent to suspicious foreign organizations. Second, the government loses control over the money flow that can be transferred via informal channels or cryptocurrencies or other obscure systems. Industry analysts are alerting that such developments may only worsen the issue of black-money instead of solving it (IGamingBusiness).

‍

Advertising, Age Gating, and Digital Rights

‍

The Act has also strengthened advertisement regulations, aligning with advisories issued by the Advertising Standards Council of India, which prohibits the targeting of minors. However, critics believe that the application remains inadequately enforced, and children can with comparative ease access unregulated overseas applications. In the absence of complementary digital literacy programs and strong parental controls, these limitations can be effectively superficial instead of real. 

Privacy advocates also warn that frequent prompts, vague messages, or invasive surveillance can weaken the digital rights of users instead of strengthening them. Overregulation has also been found to create banner blindness in global contexts where users ignore warnings without first clearly understanding them.

‍

Enforcement Challenges

‍

The Act puts a lot of responsibilities on many stakeholders, including the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). Platforms like Google Play and Apple App Store are expected to verify government-approved lists of compliant gaming apps and remove non-compliant or banned ones, as directed by the MIB and the RBI. Although this pressure may motivate intermediaries to collaborate, it may also have a risk of overreach when it is applied unequally or in a political way.

According to the experts, the solution should be underpinned by technology itself. Artificial intelligence can be used to identify illegal advertisements, track illegal gaming in children, and trace payment streams. At the same time, the regulators should be able to issue final lists of either compliant or non-compliant applications to advise the consumers and intermediaries alike. Without such practical provisions, enforcement risks remaining patchy.

‍

Online Gaming Rules

‍

On 1 October 2025, the government issued a draft of the Online Gaming Rules in accordance with the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act. The regulations focus on the creation of the compliance frameworks, define the classification of the allowed gaming activities, and prescribe grievance-redressal mechanisms aiming to promote the protection of the players and procedural transparency. However, the draft does not revisit or soften the existing blanket prohibition on real-money gaming (RMG) and, hence, the questions about the effectiveness of enforcement and regulatory clarity remain open (Times of India, 2025).

‍

Protecting Consumers Without Stifling Innovation

‍

The ban highlights a larger conflict, i.e., the protection of the vulnerable users without stifling an industry that has traditionally contributed to innovation, jobs, and the collection of tax revenue. Online gaming has significantly added to the GST collections, and the sudden shakeup brings fiscal concerns (Reuters).

Several legal objections to the Act have already been brought, asking whether the Act is constitutional, especially as to whether the restrictions are proportional to the right to trade. The outcome of such cases will define the future trajectory of the digital economy of India (Reuters).

‍

Way Forward

‍

Instead of outright prohibition, a more balanced approach that incorporates regulation and consumer protection is suggested by the experts. Key measures could include:

‍

• A definite difference between games of skill and games of chance, with proportionate regulation.
• Age confirmation and campaign against online illiteracy to protect the underage population.
• Enhanced advertising and payments compliance requirements and enforceable non-compliance penalty.

• Coordinated oversight among different ministries to prevent duplication and regulatory struggle.
• Leveraging AI and fintech to track illegal financial activities (black money flows) and developing innovation.

‍

Conclusion

‍

The Online Gaming Act 2025 addresses social issues, such as addiction, monetary risk, and child safety, that require governance interventions.  However, the path it follows to this end, that of total prohibition,  is more likely to spawn a new set of issues instead of providing solutions because it will send consumers to offshore sites, undermine consumer rights, and slow innovation.

For India, the real challenge is not whether to prohibit online money gaming but how to create a balanced, transparent, and enforceable framework that protects users while fostering a responsible gaming ecosystem. India can reduce the adverse consequences of online betting without keeping the industry in the shadows with better coordination, reasonable use of technology, and balanced protection.

‍

References:

• India's Dream11, top gaming apps halt money-based games after ban
• India online gambling ban could drive punters to black market
• Offshore betting firms with backend ops in India not covered by online gaming law
• The Great Gamble: India’s Online Gaming Ban, The GST Battle, And What Lies Ahead.
• Game Over for Online Money Games? An Analysis of the Online Gaming Act 2025
• Government gambles heavily on prohibiting online money gaming
• Online gaming regulation: New rules to take effect from October 1; government stresses consultative approach with industry

‍

Starting in mid-December, 2024, a series of attacks have targeted Chrome browser extensions. A data protection company called Cyberhaven, California, fell victim to one of these attacks. Though identified in the U.S., the geographical extent and potential of the attack are yet to be determined. Assessment of these cases can help us to be better prepared for such instances if they occur in the near future. 

The Attack

Browser extensions are small software applications that add and enable functionality or a capacity (feature) to a web browser. These are written in CSS, HTML, or JavaScript and like other software, can be coded to deliver malware. Also known as plug-ins, they have access to their own set of Application Programming Interface (APIs). They can also be used to remove unwanted elements as per customisation, such as pop-up advertisements and auto-play videos, when one lands on a website. Some examples of browser extensions include Ad-blockers (for blocking ads and content filtering) and StayFocusd (which limits the time of the users on a particular website).

In the aforementioned attack, the publisher of the browser at Cyberhaven received a phishing mail from an attacker posing to be from the Google Chrome Web Store Developer Support. It mentioned that their browser policies were not compatible and encouraged the user to click on the “Go to Policy”action item,  which led the user to a page that enabled permissions for a malicious OAuth called Privacy Policy Extension (Open Authorisation is an adopted standard that is used to authorise secure access for temporary tokens). Once the permission was granted, the attacker was able to inject malicious code into the target’s Chrome browser extension and steal user access tokens and session cookies. Further investigation revealed that logins of certain AI and social media platforms were targeted.

CyberPeace Recommendations

As attacks of such range continue to occur, it is encouraged that companies and developers take active measures that would make their browser extensions less susceptible to such attacks. Google also has a few guidelines on how developers can safeguard their extensions from their end. These include:

1. Minimal Permissions For Extensions- It is encouraged that minimal permissions for extensions barring the required APIs and websites that it depends on are acquired as limiting extension privileges limits the surface area an attacker can exploit.
2. Prioritising Protection Of Developer Accounts- A security breach on this end could lead to compromising all users' data as this would allow attackers to mess with extensions via their malicious codes. A 2FA (2-factor authentication) by setting a security key is endorsed.
3. HTTPS over HTTP- HTTPS should be preferred over HTTP as it requires a Secure Sockets Layer (SSL)/ transport layer security(TLS) certificate from an independent certificate authority (CA). This creates an encrypted connection between the server and the web browser.

Lastly, as was done in the case of the attack at Cyberhaven, it is encouraged to promote the practice of transparency when such incidents take place to better deal with them.

References

1. https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/tech-news-technology/hackers-hijack-companies-chrome-extensions-cyberhaven-9748454/
2. https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/tech-news-technology/google-chrome-extensions-hack-safety-tips-9751656/
3. https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/definition/browser-extension
4. https://www.forbes.com/sites/daveywinder/2024/12/31/google-chrome-2fa-bypass-attack-confirmed-what-you-need-to-know/
5. https://www.cloudflare.com/learning/ssl/why-use-https/