#FactCheck -Viral Photo Misidentifies Woman With Education Minister as NEET Paper Leak Accused; Fact Check Finds Claim False

Introduction

In July 2025, the Digital Defence Report prepared by Microsoft raised an alarm that India is part of the top target countries in AI-powered nation-state cyberattacks with malicious agents automating phishing, creating convincing deepfakes, and influencing opinion with the help of generative AI (Microsoft Digital Defence Report, 2025). Most of the attention in the world has continued to be on the United States and Europe, but Asia-Pacific and especially India have become a major target in terms of AI-based cyber activities. This blog discusses the role of AI in espionage, redefining the threat environment of India, the reaction of the government, and what India can learn by looking at the example of cyber giants worldwide.

Understanding AI-Powered Cyber Espionage

Conventional cyber-espionage intends to hack systems, steal information or bring down networks. With the emergence of generative AI, these strategies have changed completely. It is now possible to automate reconnaissance, create fake voices and videos of authorities and create highly advanced phishing campaigns which can pass off as genuine even to a trained expert. According to the report made by Microsoft, AI is being used by state-sponsored groups to expand their activities and increase accuracy in victims (Microsoft Digital Defence Report, 2025). Based on SQ Magazine, almost 42 percent of state-based cyber campaigns in 2025 had AIs like adaptive malware or intelligent vulnerability scanners (SQ Magazine, 2025).

AI is altering the power dynamic of cyberspace. The tools previously needing significant technical expertise or substantial investments have become ubiquitous, and smaller countries can conduct sophisticated cyber operations as well as non-state actors. The outcome is the speeding up of the arms race with AI serving as the weapon and the armour.

India’s Exposure and Response 

The weakness of the threat landscape lies in the growing online infrastructure and geopolitical location. The attack surface has expanded the magnitude of hundreds of millions of citizens with the integration of platforms like DigiLocker and CoWIN. Financial institutions, government portals and defence networks are increasingly becoming targets of cyber attacks that are more sophisticated. Faking videos of prominent figures, phishing letters with the official templates, and manipulation of the social media are currently all being a part of disinformation campaigns (Microsoft Digital Defence Report, 2025).

According to the Data Security Council of India (DSCI), the India Cyber Threat Report 2025 reported that attacks using AI are growing exponentially, particularly in the shape of malicious behaviour and social engineering (DSCI, 2025). The nodal cyber-response agency of India, CERT-In, has made several warnings regarding scams related to AI and AI-generated fake content that is aimed at stealing personal information or deceiving the population. Meanwhile, enforcement and red-teaming actions have been intensified, but the communication between central agencies and state police and the private platforms is not even. There is also an acute shortage of cybersecurity talents in India, as less than 20 percent of cyber defence jobs are occupied by qualified specialists (DSCI, 2025).

Government and Policy Evolution

The government response to AI-enabled threats is taking three forms, namely regulation, institutional enhancing, and capacity building. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 saw a major move in defining digital responsibility (Government of India, 2023). Nonetheless, threats that involve AI-specific issues like data poisoning, model manipulation, or automated disinformation remain grey areas. The following National Cybersecurity Strategy will attempt to remedy them by establishing AI-government guidelines and responsibility standards to major sectors.

At the institutional level, the efforts of such organisations as the National Critical Information Infrastructure Protection Centre (NCIIPC) and the Defence Cyber Agency are also being incorporated into their processes with the help of AI-based monitoring. There is also an emerging public-private initiative. As an example, the CyberPeace Foundation and national universities have signed a memorandum of understanding that currently facilitates the specialised training in AI-driven threat analysis and digital forensics (Times of India, August 2025). Even after these positive indications, India does not have any cohesive system of reporting cases of AI. The publication on arXiv in September 2025 underlines the importance of the fact that legal approaches to AI-failure reporting need to be developed by countries to approach AI-initiated failures in such fields as national security with accountability (arXiv, 2025).

Global Implications and Lessons for India

Major economies all over the world are increasing rapidly to integrate AI innovation with cybersecurity preparedness. The United States and United Kingdom are spending big on AI-enhanced military systems, performing machine learning in security operations hubs and organising AI-based “red team” exercises (Microsoft Digital Defence Report, 2025). Japan is testing cross-ministry threat-sharing platforms that utilise AI analytics and real-time decision-making (Microsoft Digital Defence Report, 2025).

Four lessons can be distinguished as far as India is concerned.

• To begin with, the cyber defence should shift to proactive intelligence in place of reactive investigation. It is not only possible to detect the adversary behaviour after the attacks, but to simulate them in advance using AI.
• Second, teamwork is essential. The issue of cybersecurity cannot be entrusted to government enforcement. The private sector that maintains the majority of the digital infrastructure in India must be actively involved in providing information and knowledge.
• Third, there is the issue of AI sovereignty. Building or hosting its own defensive AI tools in India will diminish dependence on foreign vendors, and minimise the possible vulnerabilities of the supply-chain.
• Lastly, the initial defence is digital literacy. The citizens should be trained on how to detect deepfakes, phishing, and other manipulated information. The importance of creating human awareness cannot be underestimated as much as technical defences (SQ Magazine, 2025).

Conclusion 

AI has altered the reasoning behind cyber warfare. There are quicker attacks, more difficult to trace and scalable as never before. In the case of India, it is no longer about developing better firewalls but rather the ability to develop anticipatory intelligence to counter AI-powered threats. This requires a national policy that incorporates technology, policy and education.

India can transform its vulnerability to strength with the sustained investment, ethical AI governance, and healthy cooperation between the government and the business sector. The following step in cybersecurity does not concern who possesses more firewalls than the other but aims to learn and adjust more quickly and successfully in a world where machines already belong to the battlefield (Microsoft Digital Defence Report, 2025).

References:

• Microsoft Digital Defense Report 2025
• India Cyber Threat Report 2025, DSCI 
• Lucknow based organisations to help strengthen cybercrime research training policy ecosystem 
• AI Cyber Attacks Statistics 2025: How Attacks, Deepfakes & Ransomware Have Escalated, SQ Magazine 
• Incorporating AI Incident Reporting into Telecommunications Law and Policy: Insights from India. ‍
• The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023

Pretext

On 20th October 2022, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,337.76 crores on Google for abusing its dominant position in multiple markets in the Android Mobile device ecosystem, apart from issuing cease and desist orders. The CCI also directed Google to modify its conduct within a defined timeline.  Smart mobile devices need an operating system (OS) to run applications (apps) and programs. Android is one such mobile operating system that Google acquired in 2005. In the instant matter, the CCI examined various practices of Google w.r.t. licensing of this Android mobile operating system and various proprietary mobile applications of Google (e.g., Play Store, Google Search, Google Chrome, YouTube, etc.).

The Issue

Google was found to be misusing its dominant position in the tech market, and the same was the reason behind the penalty. Google argued about the competitive constraints being faced from Apple. In relation to understanding the extent of competition between Google’s Android ecosystem and Apple’s iOS ecosystem, the CCI noted the differences in the two business models, which affect the underlying incentives of business decisions. Apple’s business is primarily based on a vertically integrated smart device ecosystem that focuses on the sale of high-end smart devices with state-of-the-art software components. In contrast, Google’s business was found to be driven by the ultimate intent of increasing users on its platforms so that they interact with its revenue-earning service, i.e., online searches, which directly affects the sale of online advertising services by Google. It was seen that google had created a dominant position among the android phone manufacturers as they were made to have a set of google apps preinstalled in the device to increase the user’s dependency on google services. The CCI felt that Google had created a dominant position to which they replied that the same operations are done by Apple as well, to which the commission responded that apple is a phone and app manufacturer and they have Apple-owned apps in Apple devices only, but Google here in had made a pseudo mandate for android manufactures to have the google apps pre-installed which is, in turn, a possible way of disrupting the market equilibrium and violative of market practices. The CCI imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,337.76 for abusing its dominant position in multiple markets in India, CCI delineated the following five relevant markets in the present matter –

• The market for licensable OS for smart mobile devices in India
• The market for app store for Android smart mobile OS in India
• The market for general web search services in India
• The market for non-OS specific mobile web browsers in India
• The market for online video hosting platforms (OVHP) in India.

Supreme Courts Opinion

In October 2022, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) ruled that Google, owned by Alphabet Inc, exploited its dominant position in Android and told it to remove restrictions on device makers, including those related to the pre-installation of apps and ensuring exclusivity of its search. Google lost a challenge in the Supreme Court to block the directives, as the learned court refused to put a stay on the imposed penalty, further giving seven days to comply. The Supreme Court has said a lower tribunal—where Google first challenged the Android directives—can continue to hear the company’s appeal and must rule by March 31.

Counterpoint Research estimates that about 97% of 600 million smartphones in India run on Android. Apple has just a 3% share. Hoping to block the implementation of the CCI directives, Google challenged the CCI order in the Supreme Court by warning it could stall the growth of the Android ecosystem. It also said it would be forced to alter arrangements with more than 1,100 device manufacturers and thousands of app developers if the directives kick in. Google has been concerned about India’s decision as the steps are seen as more sweeping than those imposed in the European Commission’s 2018 ruling. There it was fined for putting in place what the Commission called unlawful restrictions on Android mobile device makers. Google is still challenging the record $4.3 billion fine in that case. In Europe, Google made changes later, including letting Android device users pick their default search engine, and said device makers would be able to license the Google mobile application suite separately from the Google Search App or the Chrome browser.

‍

Conclusion

As the world goes deeper into cyberspace, the big tech companies have more control over the industry and the markets, but the same should not turn into anarchy in the global markets. The Tech giants need to be made aware that compliance is the utmost duty for all companies, and enforcement of the law of the land will be maintained no matter what. Earlier India lacked policies and legislation to govern cyberspace, but in the recent proactive stance by the govt, a lot of new bills have been tabled, one of them being the Intermediary Rules 2021, which has laid down the obligations nand duties of the companies by setting up an intermediary in the country. Such bills coupled with such crucial judgments on tech giants will act as a test and barrier for other tech companies who try to flaunt the rules and avoid compliance.

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