#FactCheck - Misleading Video Misinterprets Trump’s Handling of Official Folder as Xi Jinping’s “Private Notebook”
Executive Summary
A video circulating on social media claims that during a summit in Beijing, Donald Trump was seen peeking into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s “private notebook” while Xi briefly stepped away. However, a fact-check by CyberPeace Research Wing found the claim to be baseless. A review of the full event footage clearly shows that the folder in question belonged to Donald Trump himself, not Xi Jinping. The viral interpretation is therefore misleading.
Claim
An X user shared the clip alleging, “Trump caught sneaking a peek at Xi Jinping’s private notebook during a Beijing banquet while Xi stepped away.”
Fact Check
A longer version of the video, shared by NBC News on May 14, shows the state banquet held at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing. Around the 1-minute-50-second mark, Xi Jinping, seated to Trump’s left, gets up and walks to the podium. The viral clip follows shortly after, showing Trump opening the folder placed to his left and flipping through its pages.
The White House also uploaded the full footage on its official YouTube channel, showing wider, uninterrupted shots of the event. Around the two-minute mark, the announcer says, “And now a toast by President Xi,” after which Xi Jinping stands up. Immediately after, Trump is seen opening the folder on his left and reading from it.
Later in the video, around the 12-minute mark, when Xi returns to his seat, Trump is seen standing up, taking the folder with him to the podium, turning pages, and reading from it. The same sequence can also be seen in the NBC News footage at around 11 minutes and 50 seconds. This clearly indicates that the folder belonged to the U.S. President and not Xi Jinping, and that Trump was not peeking into any private notebook. Another key detail is the embossed emblem on the folder, which closely resembles the Seal of the President of the United States. The American bald eagle, the national bird of the United States, is clearly visible at the centre. A comparison between the viral screenshot and the official seal shows they are nearly identical.
Conclusion
The viral claim is misleading and taken out of context. A detailed review of the full footage, including official recordings from NBC News and the White House, clearly shows that the folder in question belonged to Donald Trump and not Chinese President Xi Jinping. At multiple points in the video, Trump is seen opening, handling, and reading from the same folder, including while Xi Jinping is away from his seat and later after he returns. The visual evidence from the event also supports this conclusion. The embossed seal on the folder matches the official Seal of the President of the United States, further confirming that it was part of Trump’s official briefing material and not any private document belonging to Xi Jinping. Taken together, the full sequence of events and official video sources make it clear that the viral narrative has been incorrectly framed. There is no evidence to suggest that Trump was peeking into Xi Jinping’s personal notebook.
Related Blogs
Introduction
One of the biggest gaming populations in the world today is found in India. Every day, hundreds of millions of young Indians engage with streaming services, immersive digital content, mobile games and e-sports ecosystems. Yet, despite this massive scale of participation, India remains largely absent from the global conversation on original gaming intellectual property. Although the nation produces very few globally significant gaming worlds of its own, it consumes games on an astonishing scale. This paradox highlights a more serious structural issue with the gaming discourse in India. Our national conversation around gaming often begins and ends with regulation i.e., online betting, taxation, fantasy gaming legality, addiction and compliance. Although these worries are valid they have inadvertently obscured a much more crucial query: is India creating a gaming industry or is it just regulating a gaming market? Various subject-matter experts have expressed their views on this issue, like Shailendra Vikram Singh Former Deputy Secretary (Cyber & Information Security), Ministry of Home Affairs who is of the opinion,
“I believe India’s gaming story presents a unique paradox. While we are one of the world’s largest gaming markets, we have yet to fully realize gaming’s potential as a strategic pillar of the AVGC vision. Much of the conversation remains focused on regulation and consumption, whereas the larger opportunity lies in creation, innovation, and global competitiveness.
In my view, gaming should be recognized as a strategic creative and digital industry. It has the potential to generate high-value employment, foster indigenous intellectual property, and strengthen capabilities in design, storytelling, animation, immersive technologies, and emerging digital skills. Beyond its economic value, gaming can also serve as a powerful platform for education, skilling, and public engagement.
I also see gaming as an important medium for bringing India’s rich cultural heritage, historical narratives, and diverse traditions to global audiences through interactive storytelling. As digital experiences increasingly shape how younger generations learn, engage, and understand the world, culturally rooted content can become a source of both creative expression and national soft power.
At the same time, sustainable growth must be built on trust. Strong safeguards for cybersecurity, child protection, user safety, responsible gaming, and data governance are essential to creating a resilient and trusted ecosystem.
To realize the full promise of the AVGC vision, I believe India must aspire to be more than a large gaming market. A nation of gamers must ultimately become a nation of game creators.”
The Misplaced Focus of Regulating Bodies
A country with one of the world’s oldest storytelling civilizations should not remain from the world’s most influential storytelling medium. Examining how other nations viewed gaming as a strategic cultural enterprise highlights the disparity even further. Japan turned gaming into a tool of soft power by exporting global icons like Mario, Pokémon and Zelda. Along with K-pop and digital culture, South Korea incorporated gaming into its larger cultural export sector. With businesses like Tencent and games like Genshin Impact and Black Myth: Wukong, China is now aggressively marketing gaming as a geopolitical and technological impact ecosystem.
Through The Witcher, Poland even showed how local folklore based storytelling may achieve cultural relevance on a worldwide scale. In contrast, India contributes very little to the global gaming imagination despite having one of the strongest civilisational storytelling traditions in human history, including the Mahabharata, Ramayana, Buddhist Narratives, tribal folklore, Indic mythology and regional legends.
Artificial Intelligence and Lore of Lost Opportunities
The arrival of artificial intelligence now changes this equation dramatically. AI is lowering the barriers to creativity in ways previously unimaginable. For character design, procedural storytelling, localisation, environment creation, NPC interactions, voice synthesis and animation pipelines, independent producers and small studios can now use generative AI. Agile creative ecosystems are increasingly able to accomplish what formerly required enormous infrastructure and production teams. This offers India a once-in-a-lifetime chance to overcome conventional developmental barriers in the gaming sector. India may become a global center for AI-assisted storytelling, culturally grounded gaming storylines and scalable independent game production instead of competing just through capital-intensive AAA ecosystems.
The AVGC Promotion Task Force for India’s Digital future explicitly highlighted the significance of intellectual property development, academic integration, skilling and incubation systems. However, India still views gaming more as a compliance industry than as a significant creative economy. Economists use revenue forecasts to discuss gaming. Taxation frameworks are used by policymakers to discuss it. However, narrative ownership, digital culture, creative sovereignty and gaming as a long-term civilisational export are not sufficiently discussed.
Playing Everyone Else’s Game
The actual danger does not lie in the fact India won’t grow into a sizable gaming industry. The change has already taken place. The bigger risk is that, in a global market that is becoming more and more controlled by foreign narratives, foreign engines and foreign platforms, India may permanently remain a consumer ecosystem. Processors and graphic engines won’t be the only factors influencing gaming in the future, cultures that can emotionally engage worlds will also play a significant role. India possesses the depth of civilisation, creative heritage, technical prowess and population size necessary to develop into such a creator economy. It does not, however, have a consistent institutional focus on supporting studios, storytellers, animators and original intellectual property ecosystems.
References
- AVGC Promotion Task Force Report, Government of India
- KPMG India Media & Entertainment Reports
- EY-FICCI Media & Entertainment Industry Reports
- Newzoo Global Games Market Reports
- Lumikai “State of India Gaming” Reports
- UNESCO Reports on Cultural & Creative Industries
- World Economic Forum reports on AI and Creative Economies
.webp)
Introduction
The rise of artificial intelligence has transformed how individuals search for information, buy and compare products online. Unlike the traditional search engines like Google that presents the user with a set of links and directs users to websites, AI-powered systems provide synthesised answers and recommendations which means we don't have to click through every link to find what we are looking for, we simply have to ask an LLM and it provides recommendations based on our needs expressed through prompt. This development has raised important legal and commercial questions, one such question was addressed in the judgement of Indiamart Inter Mesh Limited v. Open AI Inc. and Others (2026 SCC OnLine Cal 5738) decided by HMJ Ravi Krishan Kapur of Calcutta High court on 20 May 2026. If an AI platform becomes a primary source of information, can a business demand inclusion in its responses? Is it a legal injury if the LLM omits a business? More fundamentally, how do the existing laws classify technologies that not only process information, but also generate new content? These were the questions that came before Calcutta High Court. Although the dispute arose from Indiamart’s complaint regarding visibility on ChatGPT search, the judgement explored beyond the disagreement between two private entities.
The Dispute
IndiaMart is one of India’s largest electronic business-to-business marketplaces since 1996, serving millions of buyers and sellers across India. They also have registered trademarks and their entire business depends on visibility on the internet considering the digitalisation of the market. Open AI launched ChatGPT search in October 2024, which is a feature that supplements AI responses with links to relevant web sources. Indiamart alleged that ChatGPT was not displaying links to their online platform in the same way that it displayed links to other competing services or individual sellers. A major grievance raised by Indiamart was that ChatGPT allegedly bypassed IndiaMart market listings by directing users to sellers’ individual websites while continuing to provide platform level links for other competing platforms. Hence, they contended that this practice diverted users away from their platform and negatively affected their business interests. The company argued that such exclusion amounted to discriminatory treatment and resulted in economic harm, diluted its trademarks and amounted to disparagement. They alleged that it violated their rights under article 14, 19, 21 under the constitution and rights under IT Act and IT Rules also. When IndiaMart sought an explanation from OpenAI, the company stated that its decision was influenced by the inclusion of IndiaMart in the United States Trade Representative (USTR) Review of Notorious Markets for Counterfeiting and Piracy 2024, a U.S. government report that identifies online and physical marketplaces alleged to facilitate intellectual property infringements. IndiaMart challenged this justification, arguing that the USTR report has no statutory or binding force in India. It further alleged selective discrimination, pointing out that several other platforms featured on the same USTR list including DHGate, Pinduoduo, Shopee, and Taobao continued to remain accessible through ChatGPT-generated responses. Consequently, IndiaMart approached the Calcutta High Court seeking interim relief directing ChatGPT to display and provide access to IndiaMart links in its responses.
ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE COURT
IndiaMart's contentions: They argued that ChatGPT, because its search feature, performs the role of an "intermediary" within the meaning of Section 2(1)(w) of the IT Act and is therefore required to comply with the obligations imposed under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. Relying on Rule 3(1)(n), IndiaMart argued that an intermediary cannot engage in discriminatory treatment of platforms or selectively restrict access to information. IndiaMart further maintained that users have a right to access information relating to its platform and that the omission of IndiaMart links from ChatGPT's responses violated this interest. They alleged violation of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution, along with the broader principle of a user's "right to know", to argue that OpenAI owed an obligation to display IndiaMart listings in response to relevant queries. In addition, IndiaMart alleged that the exclusion of its links caused commercial harm, diluted its trademarks, amounted to disparagement, and constituted an unfair trade practice that adversely affected its business and reputation.
OpenAI's contentions: OpenAI asserted that IndiaMart had no legally enforceable ‘Right to visibility’ on ChatGPT. They argued that neither contract, statute, nor constitutional law imposed any obligation on OpenAI to display, prioritise, or recommend IndiaMart links in response to user queries. In the absence of any recognised legal right, there could be no actionable injury and therefore no valid cause of action. OpenAI also challenged the classification of ChatGPT as an "intermediary" under the Information Technology Act, 2000. According to OpenAI, ChatGPT does not merely host, transmit, or facilitate access to third-party content but also generates responses through its large language model (LLM) and therefore functions more closely as an "originator" than an intermediary. Consequently, the obligations applicable to intermediaries under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, including those relied upon by IndiaMart, were inapplicable. With respect to the USTR Notorious Markets List, OpenAI submitted that its reliance on the report formed part of its internal risk-management and business policies. Such decisions, it argued, were matters of private commercial judgment and not ordinarily subject to judicial review. OpenAI further pointed out that IndiaMart had also previously blocked ChatGPT from accessing and crawling its website that weakened the company's demand for greater visibility within ChatGPT-generated responses.
Court’s decision: The court rejected Indiamart's claim that they were entitled to be displayed in ChatGPT searches. The court emphasised the autonomy of private businesses, the court held that the right to carry on trade and business is "inviolable" and that no law can compel one private entity to operate their platform for the benefit of another, which is based on foundational economic philosophy of laissez faire. Unless there is a contractual, statutory or constitutional obligation, a platform has no duty to the other platform to promote or advance their economic interest. Applying this principle, the court found no such duty or “vested legal right” that entitled IndiaMart’s visibility on ChatGPT. The court reasoned that even if users possess the ‘right to know’, Indiamart could not convert that interest into an enforceable claim under article 19(1)(g) or other legal provision. The court looked at the dispute as one arising from commercial disadvantage rather than violation of any legally protected right. Although the reduced visibility may have had economic consequences, economic harm does not by itself create a cause of action.
The court also took into consideration whether ChatGPT should be classified as an intermediary under Section 2(1)(w) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 or as an originator under Section 2(1)(za). This was an important distinction, because the intermediaries can claim safe harbour protection under section 79 of the IT act, but the originators cannot. The court expressed a preliminary view that ChatGPT is generative capabilities, place it closer to an originator than an intermediary because, unlike conventional search engines, which identify and rank existing information, Generative AI systems, analyse the data and produce new output based on algorithms, which is in response to the user’s prompt. The Court also referenced the NITI Aayog National Strategy for Artificial Intelligence (pages 7 to 12) to support its observations that ChatGPT does not merely store, host or transmit information, it can produce essays, research material, code, creative writing, and other forms of content that did not previously exist in that exact form, hence extending beyond the conventional understanding of an intermediary. The court also recognised that it is a vexed issue and remains unsettled because AI systems operate in response to users instructions and do not function independently, which is why the court refrained from providing a definitive classification and acknowledged that the question may ultimately require legislative clarification as well.
In addition to this, the Court took the view that the IndiaMart’s grievances did not amount to an Intellectual property dispute, as they found no trademark infringement or dilution because any reference to the "IndiaMart" mark was merely descriptive and did not constitute commercial use "in the course of trade" under Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act. IndiaMart also hadn’t demonstrated any false or misleading use of its trademark.
Similarly, the Court found that claims of disparagement, trade libel, and injurious falsehood were unsustainable because such claims require the publication of a false statement that harms reputation and since ChatGPT had not published any derogatory statement about IndiaMart, the mere omission of links could not amount to disparagement or libel. The Court relied on Tech Plus Media v. Jyoti Janda, that allegations of unfairness or copyright infringement must be supported by specific pleadings and evidence.
Beyond the immediate dispute, the judgment shed light on the growing difficulty of applying legal categories created for an earlier internet era to generative AI systems. The Information Technology Act was enacted at a time when internet regulation focused primarily on websites, service providers, and electronic communications and therefore existing classifications may not adequately address the hybrid nature of contemporary AI technologies. The Court acknowledged OpenAI's concern that granting IndiaMart's request could trigger floodgates of litigation on similar claims from businesses dissatisfied with AI-generated visibility, however, it clarified that such concerns cannot outweigh genuine legal claims or fundamental rights. The Court suggested that legislative intervention may eventually be necessary.
Conclusion
This judgement not only addressed the visibility issue in AI generated responses, but also whether visibility itself can become a legally protected interest in AI-driven searches? As more and more users rely on AI generated output for their preference rather than traditional search engine output, the power to decide what information is displayed and what is not will eventually become economically significant. The Calcutta High Court through this judgement declined to create any such right through judicial interventions and also highlighted that the existing legal framework is not adequately equipped to address the novel challenges posed by generative AI.
(This blog is based on the judgment in Indiamart Inter Mesh Limited v. Open AI Inc. and Others, 2026 SCC OnLine Cal 5738, decided on May 20, 2026 by the Calcutta High Court, and related reporting by LiveLaw and SCC Times.)
References
- https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/calcutta-high-court/no-right-to-visibility-exists-on-private-ai-platforms-calcutta-high-court-refuses-to-direct-chatgpt-to-display-indiamart-links-536891
- https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2026/06/03/chatgpt-intermediary-originator-it-act-calcutta-high-court/
- https://indiankanoon.org/doc/198449710/
.webp)
Executive Summary:
A viral image circulating on social media claims to show a Hindu Sadhvi marrying a Muslim man; however, this claim is false. A thorough investigation by the Cyberpeace Research team found that the image has been digitally manipulated. The original photo, which was posted by Balmukund Acharya, a BJP MLA from Jaipur, on his official Facebook account in December 2023, he was posing with a Muslim man in his election office. The man wearing the Muslim skullcap is featured in several other photos on Acharya's Instagram account, where he expressed gratitude for the support from the Muslim community. Thus, the claimed image of a marriage between a Hindu Sadhvi and a Muslim man is digitally altered.
Claims:
An image circulating on social media claims to show a Hindu Sadhvi marrying a Muslim man.
Fact Check:
Upon receiving the posts, we reverse searched the image to find any credible sources. We found a photo posted by Balmukund Acharya Hathoj Dham on his facebook page on 6 December 2023.
This photo is digitally altered and posted on social media to mislead. We also found several different photos with the skullcap man where he was featured.
We also checked for any AI fabrication in the viral image. We checked using a detection tool named, “content@scale” AI Image detection. This tool found the image to be 95% AI Manipulated.
We also checked with another detection tool for further validation named, “isitai” image detection tool. It found the image to be 38.50% of AI content, which concludes to the fact that the image is manipulated and doesn’t support the claim made. Hence, the viral image is fake and misleading.
Conclusion:
The lack of credible source and the detection of AI manipulation in the image explains that the viral image claiming to show a Hindu Sadhvi marrying a Muslim man is false. It has been digitally altered. The original image features BJP MLA Balmukund Acharya posing with a Muslim man, and there is no evidence of the claimed marriage.
- Claim: An image circulating on social media claims to show a Hindu Sadhvi marrying a Muslim man.
- Claimed on: X (Formerly known as Twitter)
- Fact Check: Fake & Misleading
