#Factcheck-Allu Arjun visits Shiva temple after success of Pushpa 2? No, image is from 2017
Executive Summary:
Recently, a viral post on social media claiming that actor Allu Arjun visited a Shiva temple to pray in celebration after the success of his film, PUSHPA 2. The post features an image of him visiting the temple. However, an investigation has determined that this photo is from 2017 and does not relate to the film's release.
Claims:
The claim states that Allu Arjun recently visited a Shiva temple to express his thanks for the success of Pushpa 2, featuring a photograph that allegedly captures this moment.
Fact Check:
The image circulating on social media, that Allu Arjun visited a Shiva temple to celebrate the success of Pushpa 2, is misleading.
After conducting a reverse image search, we confirmed that this photograph is from 2017, taken during the actor's visit to the Tirumala Temple for a personal event, well before Pushpa 2 was ever announced. The context has been altered to falsely connect it to the film's success. Additionally, there is no credible evidence or recent reports to support the claim that Allu Arjun visited a temple for this specific reason, making the assertion entirely baseless.
Before sharing viral posts, take a brief moment to verify the facts. Misinformation spreads quickly and it’s far better to rely on trusted fact-checking sources.
Conclusion:
The claim that Allu Arjun visited a Shiva temple to celebrate the success of Pushpa 2 is false. The image circulating is actually from an earlier time. This situation illustrates how misinformation can spread when an old photo is used to construct a misleading story. Before sharing viral posts, take a moment to verify the facts. Misinformation spreads quickly, and it is far better to rely on trusted fact-checking sources.
- Claim: The image claims Allu Arjun visited Shiva temple after Pushpa 2’s success.
- Claimed On: Facebook
- Fact Check: False and Misleading
Related Blogs
India’s Rapid Digital Expansion
Over the past decade, India has experienced a rapid digitalisation process. The rise of digital financial services, affordable internet costs, and the penetration of smartphones have transformed the way people communicate, transact and do business online.
Online payment systems, including Unified Payments Interface (UPI), have enabled real-time transactions between banks and financial systems. As much as these systems have enhanced access to finance and efficiency, they have also created new opportunities for cybercriminals.
Cybercrime has evolved alongside the shift of financial and social interactions to digital platforms. The fraud attacks on online payments, online banking, and personal information have become common and increasingly costly.
To analyse the scale and trend of cybercrime in India, this analysis will use the datasets released by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) and financial fraud data released by the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) under the Ministry of Home Affairs.
The Rise of Cybercrime in India
The Rise of Cybercrime in India
Source: National Crime Records Bureau – Crime in India Reports
The data released by the NCRB documents cybercrime incidents registered by the police at the national level under the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) and criminal provisions covering offences such as cheating, impersonation, and digital fraud. In the past, the offences were listed in the provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Following criminal law reforms in India, on 1 July 2024, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which replaced the IPC, came into force. Section 419 (cheating by impersonation), IPC, would be related to BNS Section 319 and Section 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), which would be related to BNS Section 318(4). Similarly, crimes involving forgery and use of forged documents or electronic documents, which were previously contained in the IPC Sections 465-471, are dealt with in BNS Sections 335-340.
The data published by the NCRB represent the number of crimes that reached the point of the First Information Report (FIR) registration, meaning they reflect only cybercrime cases that were formally presented to the law enforcement system to investigate, rather than all complaints reported. The data shows that cybercrime cases increased from 27,248 in 2018 to 86,420 in 2023, a 3.17-fold increase in 5 years.
Two structural shifts are visible: the post-pandemic jump and subsequent acceleration.
However, these figures likely underestimate the true scale of cybercrime because many incidents are reported only through online complaint portals and may not result in FIR registration.
The Financial Scale of Digital Fraud
The Financial Scale of Digital Fraud
This dataset tracks financial fraud complaints reported through the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal (NCRP) and the estimated financial losses associated with those complaints.
The financial losses reported between 2021 and 2024 increased by 41 times over four years, compared to 2021, from 551 crore to 22,848 crore. At the same time, the number of complaints rose from 262,846 to over 1.9 million, an increase of ~623%, indicating both rising victimisation and greater public awareness of reporting mechanisms.
The contrast between these two trends is striking:
While complaints increased by around 7 times, financial losses increased by over 40 times.
Distribution of Cyber-Fraud Complaints and Financial Losses by Fraud Type
This divergence implies an uneven relationship between the number of incidents and the financial damage that they inflict. Most cyber fraud incidents involve relatively small transaction values; however, a smaller group of fraud categories result in disproportionate numbers of financial losses.
Distribution of Financial Losses Across Major Cyber-Fraud Categories in India
As reported by The Indian Express, based on the data compiled by the I4C, investment-related scams alone account for roughly 77% of reported cyber-fraud losses, followed by smaller shares from “digital arrest” scams (8%), credit card fraud (7%), sextortion (4%), e-commerce fraud (3%), and malware or app-based fraud (1%). This distribution means that even though scams with lower values, like phishing, OTP fraud, and small payment fraud, produce a high proportion of complaints, few categories of fraud produce most of the financial losses.
Analysis
1. Cybercrime is expanding faster than most traditional crimes: The fact that cybercrime cases have tripled in five years shows that cyber offences are presently becoming a significant element of Indian crime. Unlike conventional crimes that require physical proximity, cybercrime can be conducted remotely and at scale, enabling perpetrators to target large numbers of victims simultaneously.
2. Financial losses are concentrated in a small set of fraud categories: As cases of cybercrimes have been on the increase, the monetary losses of digital fraud cases have been increasing at a higher rate. The fact that the number of reported financial losses has increased 40 times in 4 years indicates that cybercrime has a very high economic impact.
3. Complaint volumes and financial damage follow different patterns: When comparing complaints and financial losses, it is evident that cyber fraud losses are unevenly distributed across types of incidents. Most of the prevalent scams reported, including phishing or OTP fraud, involve relatively small transaction values but yield a high portion of complaints. Conversely, fewer categories of fraud, especially investment-based schemes, contribute a significantly higher percentage of total financial losses.
4. Digital financial infrastructure has expanded the attack surface: India’s rapid adoption of digital payment systems, mobile banking and digital financial systems has dramatically increased the number of potential victims of cybercriminals. The scale of online transactions creates new vulnerabilities that organised cybercrime networks take advantage of.
5. Reporting improvements reveal previously hidden crime: The expansion of national reporting systems has enhanced the transparency in the trends of cybercrime. The increase in the number of complaints recorded is partially due to improved reporting systems and not necessarily to the increased criminal activity, meaning that previous data might have understated the magnitude of cyber fraud.
Recommendations
1. Move from reactive policing to proactive cyber-risk monitoring: The conventional models of policing focus on investigation of crimes that have already taken place. With such a magnitude and pace of cyber fraud, India should have systems that are designed to detect and prevent the fraud at its early stages, such as real-time observation of suspicious patterns in transactions by financial institutions.
2. Strengthen financial intelligence sharing across institutions: There are a lot of instances of cyber fraud that use more than one bank, payment system, and telecommunication provider. To detect new networks of fraud sooner, it can be suggested to establish more information-sharing measures between the financial institution and law enforcement agencies.
3. Target organised cyber fraud networks rather than individual incidents: Many digital scams operate through organised networks that coordinate phishing, mule accounts, and fake payment channels. The solution in regard to this involves dismantling these networks through investigative procedures instead of treating incidents on a case-by-case basis.
4. Improve recovery mechanisms for stolen funds: The recovery of the funds lost is one of the most difficult issues in cases of cyber fraud. Expanding systems such as the Citizen Financial Cyber Fraud Reporting and Management System (CFCFRMS) can improve the speed at which fraudulent transactions are frozen or reversed.
5. Strengthen digital financial literacy: A significant percentage of cyber frauds are based on social engineering methods that take advantage of user behaviour as opposed to technical weaknesses. Victimisation can be greatly reduced through specific public awareness efforts on typical scam schemes.
Conclusion
India’s experience illustrates a broader global trend: as economies digitise, crime increasingly follows the flow of digital money. While cybercrime incidents are rising steadily, the much faster growth in financial losses suggests that cybercriminals are becoming more organised, technologically sophisticated, and economically motivated.
References:
- https://indianexpress.com/article/india/indians-lost-rs-53000-crore-fraud-cheating-cases-six-years-maharashtra-2025-10452185/
- https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2226441®=3&lang=2 -
- https://www.ncrb.gov.in/crime-in-india.html
- https://i4c.mha.gov.in/index.aspx
- https://i4c.mha.gov.in/index.aspx
Introduction
A disturbing trend of courier-related cyber scams has emerged, targeting unsuspecting individuals across India. In these scams, fraudsters pose as officials from reputable organisations, such as courier companies or government departments like the narcotics bureau. Using sophisticated social engineering tactics, they deceive victims into divulging personal information and transferring money under false pretences. Recently, a woman IT professional from Mumbai fell victim to such a scam, losing Rs 1.97 lakh.
Instances of courier-related cyber scams
Recently, two significant cases of courier-related cyber scams have surfaced, illustrating the alarming prevalence of such fraudulent activities.
- Case in Delhi: A doctor in Delhi fell victim to an online scam, resulting in a staggering loss of approximately Rs 4.47 crore. The scam involved fraudsters posing as representatives of a courier company. They informed the doctor about a seized package and requested substantial money for verification purposes. Tragically, the doctor trusted the callers and lost substantial money.
- Case in Mumbai: In a strikingly similar incident, an IT professional from Mumbai, Maharashtra, lost Rs 1.97 lakh to cyber fraudsters pretending to be officials from the narcotics department. The fraudsters contacted the victim, claiming her Aadhaar number was linked to the criminals’ bank accounts. They coerced the victim into transferring money for verification through deceptive tactics and false evidence, resulting in a significant financial loss.
These recent cases highlight the growing threat of courier-related cyber scams and the devastating impact they can have on unsuspecting individuals. It emphasises the urgent need for increased awareness, vigilance, and preventive measures to protect oneself from falling victim to such fraudulent schemes.
Nature of the Attack
The cyber scam typically begins with a fraudulent call from someone claiming to be associated with a courier company. They inform the victim that their package is stuck or has been seized, escalating the situation by involving law enforcement agencies, such as the narcotics department. The fraudsters manipulate victims by creating a sense of urgency and fear, convincing them to download communication apps like Skype to establish credibility. Fabricated evidence and false claims trick victims into sharing personal information, including Aadhaar numbers, and coercing them to make financial transactions for verification purposes.
Best Practices to Stay Safe
To protect oneself from courier-related cyber scams and similar frauds, individuals should follow these best practices:
- Verify Calls and Identity: Be cautious when receiving calls from unknown numbers. Verify the caller’s identity by cross-checking with relevant authorities or organisations before sharing personal information.
- Exercise Caution with Personal Information: Avoid sharing sensitive personal information, such as Aadhaar numbers, bank account details, or passwords, over the phone or through messaging apps unless necessary and with trusted sources.
- Beware of Urgency and Threats: Scammers often create a sense of urgency or threaten legal consequences to manipulate victims. Remain vigilant and question any unexpected demands for money or personal information.
- Double-Check Suspicious Claims: If contacted by someone claiming to be from a government department or law enforcement agency, independently verify their credentials by contacting the official helpline or visiting the department’s official website.
- Educate and Spread Awareness: Share information about these scams with friends, family, and colleagues to raise awareness and collectively prevent others from falling victim to such frauds.
Legal Remedies
In case of falling victim to a courier-related cyber scam, individuals can sort to take the following legal actions:
- File a First Information Report (FIR): In case of falling victim to a courier-related cyber scam or any similar online fraud, individuals have legal options available to seek justice and potentially recover their losses. One of the primary legal actions that can be taken is to file a First Information Report (FIR) with the local police. The following sections of Indian law may be applicable in such cases:
- Section 419 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with the offence of cheating by impersonation. It states that whoever cheats by impersonating another person shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with a fine, or both.
- Section 420 of the IPC: This section covers the offence of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. It states that whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to pay a fine.
- Section 66(C) of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000: This section deals with the offence of identity theft. It states that whoever, fraudulently or dishonestly, makes use of the electronic signature, password, or any other unique identification feature of any other person shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to pay a fine.
- Section 66(D) of the IT Act, 2000 pertains to the offence of cheating by personation by using a computer resource. It states that whoever, by means of any communication device or computer resource, cheats by personating shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to pay a fine.
- National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal- One powerful resource available to victims is the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal, equipped with a 24×7 helpline number, 1930. This portal serves as a centralised platform for reporting cybercrimes, including financial fraud.
Conclusion:
The rise of courier-related cyber scams demands increased vigilance from individuals to protect themselves against fraud. Heightened awareness, caution, and scepticism when dealing with unknown callers or suspicious requests are crucial. By following best practices, such as verifying identities, avoiding sharing sensitive information, and staying updated on emerging scams, individuals can minimise the risk of falling victim to these fraudulent schemes. Furthermore, spreading awareness about such scams and promoting cybersecurity education will play a vital role in creating a safer digital environment for everyone.
Introduction
Regulatory agencies throughout Europe have stepped up their monitoring of digital communication platforms because of the increased use of Artificial Intelligence in the digital domain. Messaging services have evolved into being more than just messaging systems, they now serve as a gateway for Artificial Intelligence services, Business Tools and Digital Marketplaces. In light of this evolution, the Competition Authority in Italy has taken action against Meta Platforms and ordered Meta to cease activities on WhatsApp that are deemed to restrict the ability of other companies to sell AI-based chatbots. This action highlights the concerns surrounding Gatekeeping Power, Market Foreclosure and Innovation Suppression. This proceeding will also raise questions regarding the application of Competition Law to the actions of Dominant Digital Platforms, where they leverage their own ecosystems to promote their own AI products to the detriment of competitors.
Background of the Case
In December 2025, Italy’s competition authority, the Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (AGCM), ordered Meta Platforms to suspend certain contractual terms governing WhatsApp. These terms allegedly prevented or restricted the operation of third-party AI chatbots on WhatsApp’s platform.
The decision was issued as an interim measure during an ongoing antitrust investigation. According to the AGCM, the disputed terms risked excluding competing AI chatbot providers from accessing a critical digital channel, thereby distorting competition and harming consumer choice.
Why WhatsApp Matters as a Digital Gateway
WhatsApp is situated uniquely within the European digital landscape. It has hundreds of millions of users throughout the entire European Union; therefore, it is an integral part of the communication infrastructure that supports communications between individual consumers and companies as well as between companies and their service providers. AI chatbot developers depend heavily upon WhatsApp as it provides the ability to connect directly with consumers in real-time, which is critical to their success as business offers.
According to the Italian regulator's opinion, a corporation that controls the ability to communicate via such a popular platform has a tremendous influence over innovation within that market as it essentially operates as a gatekeeper between the company creating an innovative service and the consumer using that service. If Meta is permitted to stop competing AI chatbot developers while providing more productive and useful offers than those offered by competing developers, it is likely that competing developers will be unable to market and distribute their innovative products at sufficient scale to remain competitive.
Alleged Abuse of Dominant Position
Under EU and national competition law, companies holding a dominant market position bear a special responsibility not to distort competition. The AGCM’s concern is that Meta may have abused WhatsApp’s dominance by:
- Restricting market access for rival AI chatbot providers
- Limiting technical development by preventing interoperability
- Strengthening Meta’s own AI ecosystem at the expense of competitors
Such conduct, if proven, could amount to an abuse under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Importantly, the authority emphasised that even contractual terms—rather than explicit bans—can have exclusionary effects when imposed by a dominant platform.
Meta’s Response and Infrastructure Argument
Meta has openly condemned the Italian ruling as “fundamentally flawed,” arguing that third-party AI chatbots represent a major economic burden to the infrastructure and risk the performance, safety, and user enjoyment of WhatsApp.
Although the protection of infrastructure is a valid issue of concern, competition authorities commonly look at whether the justifications for such restrictions are appropriate and non-discriminatory. One of the principal legal issues is whether the restrictions imposed by Meta were applied in a uniform manner or whether they were selectively imposed in favour of Meta's AI services. If the restrictions are asymmetrical in application, they may be viewed as anti-competitive rather than as legitimate technical safeguards.
Link to the EU’s Digital Markets Framework
The Italian case fits into a wider EU context in relation to their efforts to regulate the actions of large technology companies with the use of prior (ex-ante) regulation as contained in the Digital Markets Act (DMA). The DMA has put in place obligations on a set of gatekeepers to make available to third parties on a non-discriminatory basis in order to maintain equitable access, interoperability and no discrimination against those parties.
While the Italian case has been brought pursuant to an Italian competition law, its philosophy is consistent with that of the DMA in that dominant digital platforms should not undertake actions that use their control over their core products and services to prevent other companies from being able to innovate. The trend with some EU national regulators is to be increasingly willing to take swift action through the application of interim measures rather than await many years for final decisions.
Implications for AI Developers and Platforms
The Italian order signifies to developers of AI-based chatbots that competitive access to AI technology via messaging services is an important factor for regulatory bodies. The order also serves as a warning to the large incumbent organisations that are establishing a foothold in the messaging services market to integrate AI into their already established platforms that they will not be protected from competition laws.
Additionally, the overall case showcases the growing consensus amongst regulatory agencies regarding the role of competition in the development of AI. If a handful of large companies are allowed to control both the infrastructure and the AI technology being operated on top of that infrastructure, the result will likely be the development of closed ecosystems that eliminate or greatly reduce the potential for technology diversity.
Conclusion
Italy's move against Meta highlights a significant intersection between competitive laws and artificial intelligence. The Italian antitrust authority has reinforced the principle that digital gatekeepers cannot use contractual methods to block off access to competition in targeting WhatsApp's restrictive terms. As AI becomes a larger part of our day to day digital services, regulatory bodies will likely continue to increase their scrutiny on platform behaviour. The result of this investigation will impact not just the Metaverse's AI strategy, but also create a baseline for future European regulators' methods of balancing innovation versus competition versus consumer choice in an increasingly AI-driven digital marketplace.
References
- https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/italy-watchdog-orders-meta-halt-whatsapp-terms-barring-rival-ai-chatbots-2025-12-24/
- https://techcrunch.com/2025/12/24/italy-tells-meta-to-suspend-its-policy-that-bans-rival-ai-chatbots-from-whatsapp/
- https://www.communicationstoday.co.in/italy-watchdog-orders-meta-to-halt-whatsapp-terms-barring-rival-ai-chatbots/
- https://www.techinasia.com/news/italy-watchdog-orders-meta-halt-whatsapp-terms-ai-bot
