#FactCheck -AI-Edited Video Falsely Attributes Beauty Parlour Remark to PM Modi in Fuel Conservation Speech
Executive Summary
Amid ongoing tensions in West Asia, a video has been circulating on social media claiming that Prime Minister Narendra Modi urged women not to visit beauty parlours as part of an appeal related to fuel conservation. Users are widely sharing the clip as genuine. However, a fact-check by CyberPeace Research Wing has found the claim to be false. The research revealed that the original video, which discussed saving petrol, diesel and cooking gas, has been digitally edited using AI tools and shared with a misleading narrative.
Claim
An Instagram user shared the viral video on May 15, 2026, claiming that the Prime Minister advised women against visiting beauty parlours.
Fact Check
A keyword-based search on Google did not return any credible media reports supporting the viral claim. To verify the video, keyframes were extracted and run through reverse image search. The original footage was traced to the official YouTube channel of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, uploaded on May 10, 2026.
The video shows a rally held in Hyderabad, where the Prime Minister appealed to the public to save fuel by adopting work-from-home practices, promoting swadeshi goods, and refraining from purchasing gold for one year. However, nowhere in the full video is there any mention of advising women not to visit beauty parlours.
Further analysis also raised suspicion that the viral clip had been digitally altered using AI tools. The video was scanned using the HIVE Moderation AI detection tool, which indicated that it is approximately 88% likely to be AI-generated or manipulated.
Conclusion
The viral video is misleading. The original speech by Prime Minister Narendra Modi about conserving petrol, diesel and cooking gas has been edited using AI tools and circulated with a false claim targeting women visiting beauty parlours.
Related Blogs
Executive Summary:
A misleading video claiming to show fireworks at Dubai International Cricket Stadium following India’s 2025 ICC Champions Trophy win has gone viral, causing confusion among viewers. Our investigation confirms that the video is unrelated to the cricket tournament. It actually depicts the fireworks display from the December 2024 Arabian Gulf Cup opening ceremony at Kuwait’s Jaber Al-Ahmad Stadium. This incident underscores the rapid spread of outdated or misattributed content, particularly in relation to significant sports events, and highlights the need for vigilance in verifying such claims.
Claim:
The circulated video claims fireworks and a drone display at Dubai International Cricket Stadium after India's win in the ICC Champions Trophy 2025.
Fact Check:
A reverse image search of the most prominent keyframes in the viral video led it back to the opening ceremony of the 26th Arabian Gulf Cup, which was hosted by Jaber Al-Ahmad International Stadium in Kuwait on December 21, 2024. The fireworks seen in the video correspond to the imagery in this event. A second look at the architecture of the stadium also affirms that the venue is not Dubai International Cricket Stadium, as asserted. Additional confirmation from official sources and media outlets verifies that there was no such fireworks celebration in Dubai after India's ICC Champions Trophy 2025 win. The video has therefore been misattributed and shared with incorrect context.
Fig: Claimed Stadium Picture
Conclusion:
A viral video claiming to show fireworks at Dubai International Cricket Stadium after India's 2025 ICC Champions Trophy win is misleading. Our research confirms the video is from the December 2024 Arabian Gulf Cup opening ceremony at Kuwait’s Jaber Al-Ahmad Stadium. A reverse image search and architectural analysis of the stadium debunk the claim, with official sources verifying no such celebration took place in Dubai. The video has been misattributed and shared out of context.
- Claim: Fireworks in Dubai celebrate India’s Champions Trophy win.
- Claimed On: Social Media
- Fact Check: False and Misleading
Introduction
In a business that historically operated in a landscape defined by probability and odds, India’s real-money gaming companies have taken their own legal bet, a gamble that may very well decide whether or not they survive. Play Games24x7, Junglee Games, Sachiko Gaming, and Head Digital Works were in front of India’s highest court on July 14, seeking review of an order that will ultimately decide the fate of these companies.
The Facts
The firms’ review petitions challenge the May 27 ruling in which the Supreme Court also upheld the constitutional legality of the 28% GST on online gaming, paving the way for over 1.5 trillion in back taxes. The petitions, prepared by the Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan law firm, “do not ask to set the entire case all over again” since a review is a technical process usually dealt with by the same bench of judges in their chambers when there’s an error on the record or genuinely fresh material before it before the case may potentially be referred for a new trial in open court if there is something significant in it.
The Genesis of the Legal Battle
To understand why gaming firms are pulling this lever, it helps to revisit what the Court actually decided in May. A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan ruled that once a player stakes money on an uncertain outcome, the platform is supplying an "actionable claim" arising from betting and gambling under GST law. The long-cherished distinction between a "game of skill" and a "game of chance", which the industry had used for years to argue it wasn't really gambling, was declared irrelevant the moment cash entered the pot.
Just as consequentially, the Court rejected the industry's central financial argument: that GST should be calculated only on the platform's commission, or gross gaming revenue, rather than on the entire amount players deposit into a contest. The bench sided with tax authorities, ruling that the 28% levy applies to the full face value of every bet. It also found that 2023 amendments to GST law were merely "clarificatory", not the creation of a brand-new tax, a finding that opened the door to retrospective demands stretching back years, rather than only from October 2023 onwards, when the amendments took effect.
The practical fallout was severe. The ruling revived a ₹21,000 crore notice against Gameskraft that the Karnataka High Court had earlier quashed, and it validated roughly 91 show-cause notices issued industry-wide, with estimates of the total exposure ranging as high as ₹1.5–2.5 lakh crore, depending on the source. For context, that figure dwarfs the cumulative revenues several of these companies have ever earned.
The Arguments Now on the Table
The review petitions attack the judgement from several angles. Head Digital Works, the parent of gaming platform A23, argues the case raised substantial constitutional questions that should have gone to a larger Constitution Bench rather than a two-judge bench and that the ruling contains errors serious enough to warrant reconsideration. A recurring theme across the petitions is timing: the companies contend GST should be triggered only when winnings are actually paid out to players, not the moment an entry fee changes hands, and that treating the 2023 amendments as retrospective effectively taxes transactions under a legal framework that didn't yet exist when they occurred. They also argue the ruling creates an unfair mismatch, taxing online games more harshly than comparable offline activity, and in Head Digital Works' filing that the judgement glosses over the industry's long-standing constitutional protection for skill-based businesses under Article 19(1)(g).
A Sector Already on the Ropes
What makes this legal battle unusually high-stakes is that it isn't happening in isolation. In August 2025, Parliament passed the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, banning all online real-money games nationwide regardless of whether they involve skill, chance, or a mix of both while carving out room for e-sports and social gaming. That law is itself under constitutional challenge, with hearings before a three-judge bench expected this year. So the same companies fighting a ₹1.5 trillion tax bill for games they used to run are simultaneously fighting for the right to run those games at all going forward. Add to this that GST on the relevant category of actionable claims was separately hiked to 40% in September 2025 as part of a broader rate overhaul, and it's clear the ground has shifted well beyond what the industry anticipated when this dispute began.
What Comes Next
The Supreme Court will first decide whether these petitions clear the threshold for review, a high bar by design, since courts are wary of turning review into a backdoor appeal. If the bench finds no fresh ground, the May 27 judgement becomes final, and companies will be left negotiating settlements, instalment plans, or insolvency proceedings against tax bills that, in several cases, exceed what they've ever earned. If the Court does find merit, it could reopen questions that reshape not just the gaming industry's tax liability but the constitutional line between what states can regulate as "betting and gambling" and what Parliament can tax as a national digital service.
Either way, the outcome will be watched well beyond the gaming world. Any digital business that collects money from users against an uncertain outcome from fantasy sports to prediction markets to certain fintech products has a stake in how the court defines "actionable claim" and how far a "clarificatory" amendment can legally reach into the past. Tax authorities, for their part, will be watching just as closely: a win here reinforces a template they've already begun applying to other sectors accused of restructuring around narrow tax definitions.
There's also an investor angle that tends to get lost in the legal jargon. Real-money gaming in India attracted billions of dollars in foreign investment over the past decade, built on the premise that skill-based games occupied a legitimate, constitutionally protected business category distinct from gambling. Between the May verdict and the PROGA ban, that premise has effectively collapsed within the space of a year. Whether or not the review petitions succeed, the episode is likely to be studied as a cautionary tale about regulatory and tax risk in India's digital economy, a reminder that a business model resting on a legal distinction is only as durable as a court's willingness to keep drawing that line.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court's decision will extend far beyond the gaming industry, shaping India's approach to digital taxation, regulatory certainty, and investor confidence. For now, the ball is back in the Supreme Court's hands, and the industry has staked its remaining legal capital on convincing the same bench that got it here to think again.
Sources
- Online gaming firms move Supreme Court seeking review of verdict upholding 28% GST levy — ANI News
- Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025 — Wikipedia
- Anti-gambling act targets real-money gaming — Law.asia
- Behind the Ban: The Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025 — Lexology
.webp)
Introduction
India's Competition Commission of India (CCI) on 18th November 2024 imposed a ₹213 crore penalty on Meta for abusing its dominant position in internet-based messaging through WhatsApp and online display advertising. The CCI order is passed against abuse of dominance by the Meta and relates to WhatsApp’s 2021 Privacy Policy. The CCI considers Meta a dominant player in internet-based messaging through WhatsApp and also in online display advertising. WhatsApp's 2021 privacy policy update undermined users' ability to opt out of getting their data shared with the group's social media platform Facebook. The CCI directed WhatsApp not to share user data collected on its platform with other Meta companies or products for advertising purposes for five years.
CCI Contentions
The regulator contended that for purposes other than advertising, WhatsApp's policy should include a detailed explanation of the user data shared with other Meta group companies or products specifying the purpose. The regulator also stated that sharing user data collected on WhatsApp with other Meta companies or products for purposes other than providing WhatsApp services should not be a condition for users to access WhatsApp services in India. CCI order is significant as it upholds user consent as a key principle in the functioning of social media giants, similar to the measures taken by some other markets.
Meta’s Stance
WhatsApp parent company Meta has expressed its disagreement with the Competition Commission of India's(CCI) decision to impose a Rs 213 crore penalty on them over users' privacy concerns. Meta clarified that the 2021 update did not change the privacy of people's personal messages and was offered as a choice for users at the time. It also ensured no one would have their accounts deleted or lose functionality of the WhatsApp service because of this update.
Meta clarified that the update was about introducing optional business features on WhatsApp and providing further transparency about how they collect data. The company stated that WhatsApp has been incredibly valuable to people and businesses, enabling organization's and government institutions to deliver citizen services through COVID and beyond and supporting small businesses, all of which further the Indian economy. Meta plans to find a path forward that allows them to continue providing the experiences that "people and businesses have come to expect" from them. The CCI issued cease-and-desist directions and directed Meta and WhatsApp to implement certain behavioral remedies within a defined timeline.
The competition watchdog noted that WhatsApp's 2021 policy update made it mandatory for users to accept the new terms, including data sharing with Meta, and removed the earlier option to opt-out, categorized as an "unfair condition" under the Competition Act. It was further noted that WhatsApp’s sharing of users’ business transaction information with Meta gave the group entities an unfair advantage over competing platforms.
CyberPeace Outlook
The 2021 policy update by WhatsApp mandated data sharing with Meta's other companies group, removing the opt-out option and compelling users to accept the terms to continue using the platform. This policy undermined user autonomy and was deemed as an abuse of Meta's dominant market position, violating Section 4(2)(a)(i) of the Competition Act, as noted by CCI.
The CCI’s ruling requires WhatsApp to offer all users in India, including those who had accepted the 2021 update, the ability to manage their data-sharing preferences through a clear and prominent opt-out option within the app. This decision underscores the importance of user choice, informed consent, and transparency in digital data policies.
By addressing the coercive nature of the policy, the CCI ruling establishes a significant legal precedent for safeguarding user privacy and promoting fair competition. It highlights the growing acknowledgement of privacy as a fundamental right and reinforces the accountability of tech giants to respect user autonomy and market fairness. The directive mandates that data sharing within the Meta ecosystem must be based on user consent, with the option to decline such sharing without losing access to essential services.
References
