#FactCheck - Uncovered: Viral LA Wildfire Video is a Shocking AI-Generated Fake!

Executive Summary:

‍
A dramatic image circulating online, showing a Boeing 787 of Air India  engulfed in flames after crashing into a building in Ahmedabad, is not a genuine photograph from the incident. Our research has confirmed it was created using artificial intelligence.

‍

‍

Claim:

‍
Social media posts and forwarded messages allege that the image shows the actual crash of Air India Flight AI‑171 near Ahmedabad airport on June 12, 2025.

‍

‍

Fact Check:

‍
In our research to validate the authenticity of the viral image, we conducted a reverse image search and analyzed it using AI-detection tools like Hive Moderation. The image showed clear signs of manipulation, distorted details, and inconsistent lighting. Hive Moderation flagged it as “Likely AI-generated”, confirming it was synthetically created and not a real photograph.

‍

‍

In contrast, verified visuals and information about the Air India Flight AI-171 crash have been published by credible news agencies like The Indian Express and  Hindustan Times, confirmed by the aviation authorities. Authentic reports include on-ground video footage and official statements, none of which feature the viral image. This confirms that the circulating photo is unrelated to the actual incident.

‍

Conclusion:

‍

‍
The viral photograph is a fabrication, created by AI, not a real depiction of the Ahmedabad crash. It does not represent factual visuals from the tragedy. It’s essential to rely on verified images from credible news agencies and official investigation reports when discussing such sensitive events.

‍

• Claim: An Air India Boeing aircraft crashed into a building near Ahmedabad airport
• Claimed On:  Social Media
• Fact Check: False and Misleading 

According to Statista, the number of users in India's digital assets market is expected to reach 107.30m users by 2025 (Impacts of Inflation on Financial Markets, August 2023). India's digital asset market has been experiencing exponential growth fueled by the increased adoption of cryptocurrencies and blockchain technology. This furthers the need for its regulation. Digital assets include cryptocurrencies, NFTs, asset-backed tokens, and tokenised real estate. 

India has defined Digital Assets under Section 47(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Finance Act 2022-23 has added the word 'virtual' to make it “Virtual Digital Assets”. A “virtual digital asset” is any information or code, number, or token, created through cryptographic methods or otherwise, by any name, giving a digital representation of value exchanged with or without consideration. A VDA should contain an inherent value and represent a store of value or unit of account, functional in any financial transaction or investment. These can be stored,  transferred, or traded in electronic format. 

Digital Asset Governance: Update and Future Outlook

Indian regulators have been conservative in their approach towards digital assets, with the Reserve Bank of India first issuing directions against cryptocurrency transactions in 2018. This ban was removed by the Supreme Court through a court order in 2020. The presentation of the Cryptocurrency and Regulation of Official Digital Currency Bill of 2021 is a fairly important milestone in its attempts to lay down the framework for issuing an official digital currency by the Reserve Bank of India. While some digital assets seem to have potential, like the Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) and blockchain-based financial applications, a blanket prohibition has been enforced on private cryptocurrencies.

However, in more recent trends, the landscape is changing as the RBI's CBDC is to provide a state-backed digital alternative to cash under a more structured regulatory framework. This move seeks to balance state control with innovation on investor safety and compliance, expecting to reduce risk and enhance security for investors by enacting strict anti-money laundering and know-your-customer laws. Highlighting these developments is important to examine how global regulatory trends influence India's digital asset policies.

Impact of Global Development on India’s Approach 

Global regulatory developments have an impact on Indian policies on digital assets. The European Union's Markets in Crypto-assets (MiCA) is to introduce a comprehensive regulatory framework for cryptocurrencies that could act as an inspiration for India. MiCA regulation covers crypto-assets that are not currently regulated by existing financial services legislation. Its particular focus on consumer protection and market integrity resonates with India in terms of investigating needs related to digital assets, including fraud and price volatility. Additionally, evolving policies in the US, such as regulating crypto exchanges and classifying certain tokens as securities, could also form the basis for India's regulatory posture.

Collaboration on the international level is also a chief contributing factor. India’s regular participation in global forums like the G20, facilitates an opportunity to align its regulations on digital assets with other countries, tending toward an even more standardised and predictable framework for cross-border transactions. This can significantly help India given that the nation  has a huge diaspora providing a critical inflow of remuneration.

CyberPeace Outlook

Though digital assets offer many opportunities to India, challenges also exist. Cryptocurrency volatility affects investors, posing concerns over fraud and illicit dealings. A balance between the need for innovation and investor protection is paramount to avoid killing the growth of India's digital asset ecosystem with overly restrictive regulations.

Financial inclusion, efficient cross-border payments with low transaction costs, and the opening of investment opportunities are a few opportunities offered by digital assets. For example, the tokenisation of real estate throws open real estate investment to smaller investors. To strengthen the opportunities while addressing challenges, some policy reforms and new frameworks might prove beneficial. 

CyberPeace Policy Recommendations

• Establish a regulatory sandbox for startups working in the area of blockchain and digital assets. This would allow them to test innovative solutions in a controlled environment with regulatory oversight minimising risks.
• Clear guidelines for the taxation of digital assets should be provided as they will ensure transparency, reduce ambiguity for investors, and promote compliance with tax regulations. Specific guidelines can be drawn from the EU's MiCA regulation.  
• Workshops, online resources, and campaigns are some examples of initiatives aimed at improving consumer awareness about digital assets, benefits and associated risks that should be implemented. Partnerships with global fintech firms will provide a great opportunity  to learn best practices.

Conclusion

India is positioned at a critical juncture with respect to the debate on digital assets. The challenge which lies ahead is one of balancing innovation with effective regulation. The introduction of the Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) and the development of new policies signal a willingness on the part of the regulators to embrace the digital future. In contrast, issues like volatility, fraud, and regulatory compliance continue to pose hurdles. By drawing insights from global frameworks and strengthening ties through international forums, India can pave the way for a secure and dynamic digital asset ecosystem. Embracing strategic measures such as regulatory sandboxes and transparent tax guidelines will not only protect investors but also unlock the immense potential of digital assets, propelling India into a new era of financial innovation and inclusivity.

References

• https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2024/10/different-countries-navigating-uncertainty-digital-asset-regulation-election-year/ 
• https://www.acfcs.org/eu-passes-landmark-crypto-regulation 
• https://www.indiabudget.gov.in/budget2022-23/doc/Finance_Bill.pdf 
• https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2024/10/different-countries-navigating-uncertainty-digital-asset-regulation-election-year/
• https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Digital_Assets_Regulation_2024.pdf 

‍

Introduction

‍

The courts in India have repeatedly emphasised the importance of “enhanced customer protection” and “limited liability” on their part. The rationale behind such imperatives is to extend security against exploitation by institutions that are equipped with all the means to manipulate customers. India, with its looming financial literacy gaps that have to be addressed, needs to curb any manipulation on the part of banking institutions. Various studies have highlighted this gap in recent times; for example, according to the National Centre for Financial Education, only 27% of Indian people are financially literate, which is much less than the 42% global average. With only 19% of millennials exhibiting sufficient financial awareness yet expressing high trust in their financial skills, the issue is very worrisome. Thus, the increasing number of financial frauds intensifies the issue. 

Zero Liability in Cyber Frauds: Regulatory Safeguards for Digital Banking Customers

‍

In light of the growing emphasis on financial inclusion and consumer protection, and in response to the recent rise in complaints regarding unauthorised debits from customer accounts and cards, the framework for assessing customer liability in such cases has been re-evaluated. The RBI’s circular dated July 6, 2017 titled “Customer Protection-Limited Liability of Customers in Unauthorised Electronic Banking Transactions”  serves as the foundation for regulatory protections for Indian customers of digital banking. A clear and organised framework for determining customer accountability is outlined in the circular, which acknowledges the exponential increase in electronic transactions and related scams. It assigns proportional obligations for unauthorised transactions resulting from system-level breaches, client carelessness, and bank contributory negligence. Most importantly it establishes the zero responsibility concept, which protects clients from monetary losses in cases when the bank or another system component is at fault and the client promptly reports the breach. 

This directive’s sophisticated approach to consumer protection is what makes it unique. It requires banks to set up strong fraud prevention systems, proactive alerting systems, and round-the-clock reporting systems. Furthermore, it significantly alters the power dynamics between financial institutions and customers by placing the onus of demonstrating customer negligence completely on the bank. The circular emphasises prompt reversal of funds to impacted customers and requires banks to implement Board-approved policies on liability to redress. As a result, it is a consumer rights charter rather than just a compliance document, promoting confidence and financial accountability in India’s digital banking sector. 

Judicial Endorsement in Reinforcing the Zero Liability Principle

‍

 In the case of Suresh Chandra Negi & Anr. v. Bank of Baroda & Ors. (Writ (C) No. 24192 of 2022) The Allahabad High Court reaffirmed that the burden of proving consumer accountability rests firmly on the banking institution, hence reaffirming the zero liability concept in circumstances of unapproved electronic banking transactions. The Division bench emphasised the regulatory requirement that banks provide adequate proof before assigning blame to customers, citing Clause 12 of the RBI’s circular dated June 6, 2017, Customer Protection—Limited Liability of Customers in Unauthorised Electronic Banking Transactions. In a similar scenario, the Bombay HC held that a customer is entitled to zero liability when an authorized transaction occurs due to a third-party breach, where the deficiency lies neither with the bank nor the customer, provided the fraud is promptly reported. 

The zero liability principle, as envisaged under Clause 8 of the RBI circular, has emerged as a cornerstone of consumer protection in India’s digital banking ecosystem.  

Another landmark judgment that has given this principle the front stage in addressing banking frauds is Hare Ram Singh vs RBI &Ors. (W.P. (C) 13497/2022) laid down by Delhi HC which is an important legal turning point in the development of the zero liability principle under the RBI’s 2017 framework. The court reiterated the need to evaluate customer diligence in light of new fraud tactics like phishing and vishing by holding the State Bank of India (SBI) liable for a cyber fraud incident even though the transactions were authenticated by OTP. The ruling made it clear that when complex social engineering or technical manipulation is used, banks are nonetheless accountable even if they only rely on OTP validation. The legal protection provided to victims of unauthorised electronic banking transactions is strengthened by the court’s emphasis on the bank having the burden of evidence in accordance with RBI standards. 

Importantly, this ruling lays the full burden of securing digital banking systems on financial organisations and supports the judiciary’s increasing acknowledgement of the digital asymmetry between banks and consumers. It emphasises that prompt consumer reporting, banks’ failure to disclose important credentials, and their own operational errors must all be taken into consideration when determining culpability. As a result, this decision establishes a strong precedent that will increase consumer confidence, promote systemic advancements in digital risk management, and better integrate the zero liability standard into Indian digital banking law. In a time when cyber vulnerabilities are growing, it acts as a beacon for financial accountability. 

Conclusion

‍

The Zero Liability Principle serves as a vital safety net for customers navigating an increasingly intricate and precarious financial environment in a time when digital transactions are the foundation of contemporary banking. In addition to codifying strong safeguards against unauthorized electronic transactions, the RBI’s 2017 framework rebalanced  the fiduciary relationship by putting financial institutions squarely in charge. Through significant rulings, the courts have upheld this protective culture and emphasised that banks, not the victims of cybercrime, bear the burden of proof. 

It would be crucial to execute these principles consistently, review them frequently, and raise public awareness as India transitions to a more digital economy. In order to ensure that consumers are not only protected but also empowered must become more than just a policy on paper. 

‍

References

• https://www.business-standard.com/content/specials/making-money-vs-managing-money-india-s-critical-financial-literacy-gap-125021900786_1.html 
• https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/allahabad-high-court/allahabad-high-court-ruling-bank-liability-unauthorized-electronic-transaction-and-customer-fault-297962 
• https://www.mondaq.com/india/white-collar-crime-anti-corruption-fraud/1635616/cyber-law-series-2-issue-10-the-zero-liability-principle-in-cyber-fraud-hare-ram-singh-v-reserve-bank-of-india-ors-case 

‍