#FactCheck -Deepfake Audio Misuses Old Jaishankar Podcast to Fabricate False Claims About “Operation Sindoor”

Introduction
‍

Meta Platforms is experiencing a long-term surge of lawsuits that not only question particular practices, but also the very design and governance of its platforms, across the United States and beyond. This range of privacy breaches to youth mental health damages and antitrust issues are all indicative of a new era of judicial, regulatory, and civil society scrutiny of the duties of big tech firms. The main question is no longer whether harmful content is placed on platforms, but to what extent they are actively creating harm-producing environments.
‍

From Content to Conduct: A Turning Point in Legal Strategy
‍

Over the years, Meta and other sites have depended on legal safeguards like the US Communications Decency Act, Section 230, which protects companies against liability due to user-created content. New ways of testing that protection are now being tried.

Recent incidents have shifted off the blame of particular content and has placed the emphasis on the design of the platform. Courts are becoming more receptive to consider whether the characteristics of infinite scroll, algorithmic amplification, and engagement-based ranking systems are contributing to quantifiable harm.

In March 2026, a California jury declared that Meta and Google were negligent in creating platforms that led to youth addiction and mental health problems. The jury decided that Meta and Google were to pay off a joint sum of 6 million dollars in damages, with 70 percent of the sum being charged on Meta. It is a bellwether case, which means that it is related to about 2,000 other pending cases by parents and school districts. This change is important as it avoids legal barriers. When the liability is linked to the design decisions instead of user-created content, accountability begins to shift. 
‍

The Youth Harm Cases: A Big Tobacco Moment
‍

Social media are becoming the subject of increased scrutiny by courts and regulators as products that have quantifiable psychological impacts. The most impactful group of lawsuits against Meta is, perhaps, the one concerning youth mental health.

A day prior to the California verdict, a New Mexico jury ordered Meta to pay $375 million in damages due to failure to safeguard young users against child predators on Instagram and Facebook, and found that the company had lied to consumers about the safety of its products and violated state consumer protection laws.

Similar arguments have been presented in other lawsuits filed by attorneys general in over 30 states, and the cases reflect previous regulatory turning points in other industries such as tobacco. The question that courts are not merely asking is whether there is harm or not. They are questioning whether businesses were aware of creating systems that capitalize on behavioral weaknesses. It has been reported in internal documents and accounts of former employees that Meta made a profit by intentionally turning its platforms into addictions to children, with algorithmic functions tailored to drive users into engagement loops, maximising time on platform to the detriment of wellbeing.

Meta has refuted these characterisations, claiming that teen mental health is multifaceted and cannot be blamed on an individual app. The companies have indicated that they will appeal the verdicts.
‍

Privacy and Data Misuse: An Ongoing Fault Line
‍

Platform design is not the only issue that Meta faces in legal matters. Cases centered on privacy have been a recurrent problem in the last ten years, and previous cases have claimed that Facebook monitored users even after they have logged out, scanned personal messages, and utilized personal data in a manner that was beyond user expectations. In more recent times, in April 2026, a class action suit was filed claiming that WhatsApp messages were accessed by Meta employees and third-party contractors, despite the long-standing end-to-end encryption guarantees of the platform.

These instances indicate a structural problem that is consistent. Consent mechanisms and privacy policies tend to be out of date with the reality of data use, and the gap between legal compliance and what users actually know or expect.
‍

Antitrust: A Win, But Not a Clean One
‍

One of the legal fronts was Meta all the way. In November 2025, a judge in the US District Court, James Boasberg, declared that Meta was not a social networking monopoly, finding that the FTC did not demonstrate that the acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp by the company were against the antitrust law. The decision has since been appealed by the FTC, which continues to argue that "Meta broke our antitrust laws by acquiring Instagram and WhatsApp, and that American consumers have been harmed by it.

The case also demonstrates a significant drawback of the antitrust law as a form of regulation of tech companies. By the time the trial occurred five years after the lawsuit was initiated, the social media market had evolved such that Tik Tok was a major competitor, undermining the market definition claims of the FTC. The structural issue of whether a few platforms are too powerful in the communication of the masses is not answered, although the legal claim in this instance might have been unsuccessful.
‍

Policy Takeaways: What This Means Going Forward
‍

The accumulating number of lawsuits against Meta provides a number of valuable lessons to policymakers.

1. Platform design has become a regulatory topic. Laws should go beyond content regulation and deal with the construction of systems. Engagement maximising features can also increase harm, and this trade-off must be governed explicitly.
2. Transparency should be mandatory and not discretionary. Privacy policies and disclosures on platforms are usually too complicated or ambiguous. Regulators might be required to make more transparent and standardised disclosures regarding the use of data and the operation of recommendation systems.
3. Section 230 safeguards are under reinterpretation. Courts are becoming open to restrict immunity in cases where the harm is associated with the conduct of the platform and not the content of the user. This would redefine the law of all digital platforms, and not only Meta.
4. Cross-border coordination is needed. Meta is an international company, yet the regulatory reaction is still divided. This will require more coordination among jurisdictions to guarantee uniform enforcement and to eliminate regulatory arbitrage.
   ‍

Conclusion
‍

The lawsuits of Meta are not single cases. They are a more general reconsideration of the regulation of digital platforms and the accountability of those responsible when design decisions have harm at scale. In the wider context of the technology ecosystem, the implications are structural. Courts are starting to question not only what is hosted on them, but how they work and why they are constructed in the manner they are.

The age of minimal responsibility is being supplanted by a more challenging requirement: that platforms should foresee, quantify, and alleviate the harms they produce. The result of these cases will not only decide the future of Meta in terms of legal matters. They will influence the regulations of the digital economy in the years to come.

‍

References
‍

1. https://www.npr.org/2026/03/25/nx-s1-5746125/meta-youtube-social-media-trial-verdict 
2. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/jury-finds-meta-and-youtube-liable-in-landmark-youth-addiction-case
3. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/meta-ftc-whatsapp-instagram/
4. https://www.cnbc.com/2026/01/20/ftc-appeals-metaruling-antitrust-instagram-whatsapp.html‍
5. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czjw0zgz9zyo

Introduction

When a tragedy strikes, moments are fragile, people are vulnerable, emotions run high, and every second is important. In such critical situations, information becomes as crucial as food, water, shelter, and medication. As soon as any information is received, it often leads to stampedes and chaos. Alongside the tragedy, whether natural or man-made, emerges another threat: misinformation. People, desperate for answers, cling to whatever they can find.

Tragedies can take many forms. These may include natural disasters, mass accidents, terrorist activities, or other emergencies. During the 2023 earthquakes in Turkey, misinformation spread on social media claiming that the Yarseli Dam had cracked and was about to burst. People believed it and began migrating from the area. Panic followed, and search and rescue teams stopped operations in that zone. Precious hours were lost. Later, it was confirmed to be a rumour. By then, the damage was already done.

Similarly, after the recent plane crash in Ahmedabad, India, numerous rumours and WhatsApp messages spread rapidly. One message claimed to contain the investigation report on the crash of Air India flight AI-171. It was later called out by PIB and declared fake.

These examples show how misinformation can take control of already painful moments. During emergencies, when emotions are intense and fear is widespread, false information spreads faster and hits harder. Some people share it unknowingly, while others do so to gain attention or push a certain agenda. But for those already in distress, the effect is often the same. It brings ore confusion, heightens anxiety, and adds to their suffering.

‍

Understanding Disasters and the Role of Media in Crisis

Disaster can be defined as a natural or human-caused situation that causes a transformation from a usual life of society into a crisis that is far beyond its existing response capacity. It can have minimal or maximum effects, from mere disruption in daily life practices to as adverse as inability to meet basic requirements of life like food, water and shelter. Hence, the disaster is not just a sudden event. It becomes a disaster when it overwhelms a community’s ability to cope with it. 

To cope with such situations, there is an organised approach called Disaster Management.  It includes preventive measures, minimising damages and helping communities recover. Earlier, public institutions like governments used to be the main actors in disaster management, but today, with every small entity having a role, academic institutions, media outlets and even ordinary people are involved. 

Communication is an important element in disaster management. It saves lives when done correctly. People who are vulnerable need to know what’s happening, what they should do and where to seek help.  It involves risk in today’s instantaneous communication. 

Research shows that the media often fails to focus on disaster preparedness. For example, studies found that during the 2019 Istanbul earthquake, the media focused more on dramatic scenes than on educating people. Similar trends were seen during the 2023 Turkey earthquakes. Rather than helping people prepare or stay calm, much of the media coverage amplified fear and sensationalised suffering. This shows a shift from preventive, helpful reporting to reactive, emotional storytelling. In doing so, the media sometimes fails in its duty to support resilience and worse, can become a channel for spreading misinformation during already traumatic events. However, fighting misinformation is not just someone’s liability. It is penalised in the official disaster management strategy. Section 54 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 mentions that "Whoever makes or circulates a false alarm or warning as to disaster or its severity or magnitude, leading to panic, shall, on conviction, be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year or with a fine."

‍

AI as a Tool in Countering Misinformation 

AI has emerged as a powerful mechanism to fight against misinformation. AI technologies like Natural Language Processing (NLP) and Machine Learning (ML) are effective in spotting and classifying misinformation with up to 97% accuracy. AI flags unverified content, leading to a 24% decrease in shares and 7% drop in likes on platforms like TikTok.  Up to 95% fewer people view content on Facebook when fact-checking labels are used. Facebook AI also eliminates 86% of graphic violence, 96% of adult nudity, 98.5% of fake accounts and 99.5% of content related to terrorism. These tools help rebuild public trust in addition to limiting the dissemination of harmful content. In 2023, support for tech companies acting to combat misinformation rose to 65%, indicating a positive change in public expectations and awareness.

‍

How to Counter Misinformation

Experts should step up in such situations. Social media has allowed many so-called experts to spread fake information without any real knowledge, research, or qualification. In such conditions, real experts such as authorities, doctors, scientists, public health officials, researchers, etc., need to take charge. They can directly address the myths and false claims and stop misinformation before it spreads further and reduce confusion. 

Responsible journalism is crucial during crises. In times of panic, people look at the media for guidance. Hence, it is important to fact-check every detail before publishing. Reporting that is based on unclear tips, social media posts, or rumours can cause major harm by inciting mistrust, fear, or even dangerous behaviour. Cross-checking information, depending on reliable sources and promptly fixing errors are all components of responsible journalism. Protecting the public is more important than merely disseminating the news.

Focus on accuracy rather than speed. News spreads in a blink in today's world. Media outlets and influencers often come under pressure to publish it first.  But in tragic situations like natural disasters and disease outbreaks, rushing to come first is not as important as accuracy is, as a single piece of misinformation can spark mass-scale panic and can slow down emergency efforts and lead people to make rash decisions. Taking a little more time to check the facts ensures that the information being shared is helpful, not harmful. Accuracy may save numerous lives during tragedies. 

Misinformation spreads quickly it can only be prevented if people learn to critically evaluate what they hear and see. This entails being able to spot biased or deceptive headlines, cross-check claims and identify reliable sources.  Digital literacy is of utmost importance; it makes people less susceptible to fear-based rumours, conspiracy theories and hoaxes. 

Disaster preparedness programs should include awareness about the risks of spreading unverified information. Communities, schools and media platforms must educate people on how to respond responsibly during emergencies by staying calm, checking facts and sharing only credible updates. Spreading fake alerts or panic-inducing messages during a crisis is not only dangerous, but it can also have legal consequences. Public communication must focus on promoting trust, calm and clarity. When people understand the weight their words can carry during a crisis, they become part of the solution, not the problem.

References: 

1. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/3556152 
2. https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/SMWG_Countering-False-Info-Social-Media-Disasters-Emergencies_Mar2018-508.pdf 
3. https://english.mathrubhumi.com/news/india/fake-whatsapp-message-air-india-crash-pib-fact-check-fcwmvuyc ‍
4. https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/SMWG_Countering-False-Info-Social-Media-Disasters-Emergencies_Mar2018-508.pdf

Executive Summary:

A widely circulated social media post claims that the Government of India has reportedly opened an account—Army Welfare Fund Battle Casualty—at Canara Bank to support the modernization of the Indian Army and assist injured or martyred soldiers. Citizens can voluntarily contribute starting from ₹1, with no upper limit. The fund is said to have been launched based on a suggestion by actor Akshay Kumar, which was later acknowledged by the Prime Minister of India through Mann Ki Baat and social media platforms. However, the fact is that no such decision has been taken by the cabinet recently, and no such decision has been officially announced.

‍

Claim:

A viral social media post claims that the Government of India has launched a new initiative aimed at modernizing the Indian Army and supporting battle casualties through public donations. According to the post, a special bank account has been created to enable citizens to contribute directly toward the procurement of arms and equipment for the armed forces.

It further states that this initiative was introduced following a Cabinet decision and was inspired by a suggestion from Bollywood actor Akshay Kumar, which was reportedly acknowledged by the Prime Minister during his Mann Ki Baat address.

The post encourages individuals to donate any amount starting from ₹1, with no upper limit, and estimates that widespread public participation could generate up to ₹36,000 crore annually to support the armed forces. It also lists two bank accounts—one at Canara Bank (Account No: 90552010165915) and another at State Bank of India (Account No: 40650628094)—allegedly designated for the "Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund."

The statement said,” The government established a range of welfare schemes for soldiers killed or disabled while undertaking military operations in recent combat. In 2020, the government established the 'Armed Forces Battle Casualty Welfare Fund (AFBCWF)', which is used to provide immediate financial assistance to families of soldiers, sailors and airmen who lose their lives or sustain grievous injury as a result of active military service.” 

‍

‍

We also found a similar post from the past, which can be seen here.
‍

‍

Fact Check:

‍

The Press Information Bureau (PIB) have responded to the viral post stating that it is misleading, and the Government has not launched any message inviting public donations towards the modernisation of the Indian Army or for purchasing Weapons for the army. The only known official initiative by the Ministry of Defence is the "Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund", which is an initiative set up to support the families of our soldiers who have been marshalled or grievously disabled in the line of duty, not for buying military equipment.

‍

In addition, the bank account details mentioned in the Viral post are false, and donations and charitable donations submitted to the account have been dishonoured. 

‍

The other false claim says that actor Akshay Kumar is promoting or heading this message-there is no official/disclosure record or announcement related to him leading or sponsoring this project. Having said that in 2017, Akshay Kumar encouraged public contributions of just one rupee per month to support the armed forces, through a web portal called “Bharat Ke Veer”. The platform was developed in partnership with the Ministry of Home Affairs

‍

Citizens have to rely on only official government sources and ignore misleading messages on such social media platforms.

Conclusion:

The viral social media post suggesting that the Government of India has initiated a donation drive for the modernisation of the Indian Army and the purchase of weapons is misleading and inaccurate. According to the Press Information Bureau (PIB), no such initiative has been launched by the government, and the bank account details provided in the post are false, with reported cases of dishonoured transactions. The only legitimate initiative is the Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund (AFBCWF), which provides financial assistance to the families of soldiers who are martyred or seriously injured in the line of duty. While actor Akshay Kumar played a key role in launching the Bharat Ke Veer portal in 2017 to support paramilitary personnel, he has no official connection to the viral claims.

• Claim: The government has launched a public donation message to fund Army weapon purchases.
• Claimed On:  Social Media
• Fact Check: False and Misleading

‍