#FactCheck: Fake Claim on Delhi Authority Culling Dogs After Supreme Court Stray Dog Ban Directive 11 Aug 2025

Introduction

Privacy has become a concern for netizens and social media companies have access to a user’s data and the ability to use the said data as they see fit. Meta’s business model, where they rely heavily on collecting and processing user data to deliver targeted advertising, has been under scrutiny. The conflict between Meta and the EU traces back to the enactment of GDPR in 2018. Meta is facing numerous fines for not following through with the regulation and mainly failing to obtain explicit consent for data processing under Chapter 2, Article 7 of the GDPR. ePrivacy Regulation, which focuses on digital communication and digital data privacy, is the next step in the EU’s arsenal to protect user privacy and will target the cookie policies and tracking tech crucial to Meta's ad-targeting mechanism. Meta’s core revenue stream is sourced from targeted advertising which requires vast amounts of data for the creation of a personalised experience and is scrutinised by the EU. 

Pay for Privacy Model and its Implications with Critical Analysis

Meta came up with a solution to deal with the privacy issue - ‘Pay or Consent,’ a model that allows users to opt out of data-driven advertising by paying a subscription fee. The platform would offer users a choice between free, ad-supported services and a paid privacy-enhanced experience which aligns with the GDPR and potentially reduces regulatory pressure on Meta. 

Meta presently needs to assess the economic feasibility of this model and come up with answers for how much a user would be willing to pay for the privacy offered and shift Meta’s monetisation from ad-driven profits to subscription revenues. This would have a direct impact on Meta’s advertisers who use Meta as a platform for detailed user data for targeted advertising, and would potentially decrease ad revenue and innovate other monetisation strategies.

For the users, increased privacy and greater control of data aligning with global privacy concerns would be a potential outcome. While users will undoubtedly appreciate the option to avoid tracking, the suggestion does beg the question that the need to pay might become a barrier. This could possibly divide users between cost-conscious and privacy-conscious segments. Setting up a reasonable price point is necessary for widespread adoption of the model.

For the regulators and the industry, a new precedent would be set in the tech industry and could influence other companies’ approaches to data privacy. Regulators might welcome this move and encourage further innovation in privacy-respecting business models. 

The affordability and fairness of the ‘pay or consent’ model could create digital inequality if privacy comes at a digital cost or even more so as a luxury. The subscription model would also need clarifications as to what data would be collected and how it would be used for non-advertising purposes. In terms of market competition, competitors might use and capitalise on Meta’s subscription model by offering free services with privacy guarantees which could further pressure Meta to refine its offerings to stay competitive. According to the EU, the model needs to provide a third way for users who have ads but are a result of non-personalisation advertising.

Meta has further expressed a willingness to explore various models to address regulatory concerns and enhance user privacy. Their recent actions in the form of pilot programs for testing the pay-for-privacy model is one example. Meta is actively engaging with EU regulators to find mutually acceptable solutions and to demonstrate its commitment to compliance while advocating for business models that sustain innovation. Meta executives have emphasised the importance of user choice and transparency in their future business strategies.

Future Impact Outlook

• The Meta-EU tussle over privacy is a manifestation of broader debates about data protection and business models in the digital age. 
• The EU's stance on Meta’s ‘pay or consent’ model and any new regulatory measures will shape the future landscape of digital privacy, leading to other jurisdictions taking cues and potentially leading to global shifts in privacy regulations. 
• Meta may need to iterate on its approach based on consumer preferences and concerns. Competitors and tech giants will closely monitor Meta’s strategies, possibly adopting similar models or innovating new solutions. And the overall approach to privacy could evolve to prioritise user control and transparency.

Conclusion

Consent is the cornerstone in matters of privacy and sidestepping it violates the rights of users. The manner in which tech companies foster a culture of consent is of paramount importance in today's digital landscape. As the exploration by Meta in the ‘pay or consent’ model takes place, it faces both opportunities and challenges in balancing user privacy with business sustainability. This situation serves as a critical test case for the tech industry, highlighting the need for innovative solutions that respect privacy while fostering growth with the specificity of dealing with data protection laws worldwide, starting with India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act, of 2023.

Reference:

• https://ciso.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/grc/eu-tells-meta-to-address-consumer-fears-over-pay-for-privacy/111946106 
• https://www.wired.com/story/metas-pay-for-privacy-model-is-illegal-says-eu/ 
• https://edri.org/our-work/privacy-is-not-for-sale-meta-must-stop-charging-for-peoples-right-to-privacy/ 
• https://fortune.com/2024/04/17/meta-pay-for-privacy-rejected-edpb-eu-gdpr-schrems/ 

‍

Executive Summary:

A morphed video of the actor Anup Soni popular on social media promoting IPL betting Telegram channel is found to be fake. The audio in the morphed video is produced through AI voice cloning. AI manipulation was identified by AI detection tools and deepfake analysis tools. In the original footage Mr Soni explains a case of crime, a part of the popular show Crime Patrol which is unrelated to betting.  Therefore, it is important to draw the conclusion that Anup Soni is in no way associated with the betting channel.

‍

Claims:

The facebook post claims the IPL betting Telegram channel which belongs to Rohit Khattar is promoted by Actor Anup Soni.

Fact Check:

Upon receiving the post, the CyberPeace Research Team closely analyzed the video and found major discrepancies which are mostly seen in AI-manipulated videos. The lip sync of the video does not match the audio. Taking a cue from this we analyzed using a Deepfake detection tool by True Media. It is found that the voice of the video is 100% AI-generated. 

We then extracted the audio and checked in an audio Deepfake detection tool named Hive Moderation. Hive moderation found the audio to be 99.9% AI-Generated.

‍

We then divided the video into keyframes and reverse searched one of the keyframes and found the original video uploaded by the YouTube channel named LIV Crime.

Upon analyzing we found that in the 3:18 time frame the video was edited, and altered with an AI voice.

‍

Hence, the viral video is an AI manipulated video and it’s not real. We have previously debunked such AI voice manipulation with different celebrities and politicians to misrepresent the actual context. Netizens must be careful while believing in such AI manipulation videos.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the viral video claiming that  IPL betting Telegram channel promotion by actor Anup Soni is false. The video has been manipulated using AI voice cloning technology, as confirmed by both the Hive Moderation AI detector and the True Media AI detection tool. Therefore, the claim is baseless and misleading.

• Claim:  An IPL betting Telegram channel belonging to Rohit Khattar promoted by Actor Anup Soni.
• Claimed on: Facebook
• Fact Check: Fake & Misleading

In the past decade, India’s gaming sector has seen a surprising but swift advancement, which brought along millions of players and over billions in investments and has even been estimated to be at $23 billion. Whether it's fantasy cricket and Ludo apps, high-stakes poker, or rummy platforms, investing real money in online gaming and gambling has become a beloved hobby for many. Moreover, it not only gave a boost to the economy but also contributed to creative innovation and the generation of employment.

The real concern lies behind the glossy numbers, tales of addiction, financial detriment, and the never-ending game of cat and mouse with legal loopholes. The sector’s meteoric rise has raised various concerns relating to national financial integrity, regulatory clarity and consumer safety. 

In light of this, the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025, which was passed by Parliament and signed into law on August 22, stands out as a significant development. The Act, which is positioned as a consumer protection and sector-defining law, aims to distinguish between innovation and exploitation by acknowledging e-sport as a legitimate activity and establishing unambiguous boundaries around the larger gaming industry. 

‍

Key Highlights of the Act

‍

• Complete Ban on all games involving Real-Money: All e-games, whether based on skill or luck, that involve monetary stakes have been banned.
• Prohibition of Ads: Promotion of such e-games has also been disallowed across all platforms.
• Legal Ramifications: Operation of such games may lead to up to 3 years in prison with a 1 cr fine; Advertisement for the same may lead to up to 2 years in prison with a 50 lakh fine. However, in case of repeat offences, this may go up to 3-5 years in prison and 2 cr in fines.
• Creation of Online Gaming Authority: The creation of a national-level regulatory body to classify and monitor games, register platforms and enforce the dedicated rules.
• Support for eSports and Social & Educational games: All kinds of games that are non-monetary, promote social and educational growth, will not only be recognised but encouraged. Meanwhile, eSports will also gain official recognition under the Ministry of Sports.

‍

Positive Impacts

‍

• Addressal & Tackling of Addiction and Financial Ruin: The major reason behind the ban is to reduce the cases of players, mainly youth, getting into gambling and losing huge amounts of money to betting apps and games, and to protect vulnerable users 
• Boost to eSports & Regulatory Clarity: The law not only legitimises the eSport sector but also provides opportunities for scholarship and other financial benefits, along with windows for professional tournaments and platforms on global stages. Along with this aims to bring about an order around e-games of skill versus luck.
• Fraud Monitoring & Control: The law makes sure to block off avenues for money laundering, gambling and illegal betting networks.
• Promotion of Safe Digital Ecosystem: Encouraging social, developmental and educational games to focus on skill, learning and fun.

Challenges

The fact that the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025 is still in its early stages, which must be recognised. In the end, its effectiveness will rely not only on the letter of the law but on the strength of its enforcement and the wisdom of its application. The Act has the potential to safeguard the interests of at-risk youth from the dangers of gambling and its addiction, if it is applied carefully and clearly, all the while maintaining the digital ecosystem as a place of innovation, equity, and trust.

• Blanket Ban: By imposing a blanket ban on games that have long been justified as skill-based like rummy or fantasy cricket, the Act runs the risk of suppressing respectable enterprises and centres of innovation. Many startups that were once hailed for being at the forefront of India’s digital innovation may now find it difficult to thrive in an unpredictable regulatory environment.
• Rise of Illegal Platforms: History offers a sobering lesson, prohibition does not eliminate demand, it simply drives it underground. The prohibition of money games may encourage the growth of unregulated, offshore sites, where players are more vulnerable to fraud, data theft, and abuse and have no way to seek consumer protection.
  
  

Conclusion

The Act is definitely a tough and bold stand to check and regulate India’s digital gaming industry, but it is also a double-edged sword. It brings in much-needed consumer protection regulations in place and legitimises e-Sports. However, it also casts a long shadow over a successful economy and runs the risk of fostering a black market that is more harmful than the issue it was intended to address. 

Therefore, striking a balance between innovation and protection, between law and liberty, will be considered more important in the coming years than the success of regulations alone. India’s legitimacy as a digital economy ready for global leadership, as well as the future of its gaming industry, will depend on how it handles this delicate balance. 

‍

References: 

1. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/technology/gaming-bodies-write-to-amit-shah-urge-to-block-blanket-ban-warn-of-rs-20000-crore-tax-loss/articleshow/123392342.cms
2. https://m.economictimes.com/news/india/govt-estimates-45-cr-people-lose-about-rs-20000-cr-annually-from-real-money-gaming/articleshow/123408237.cms
3. https://www.cyberpeace.org/resources/blogs/promotion-and-regulation-of-online-gaming-bill-2025-gets-green-flag-from-both-houses-of-parliament
4. https://www.thehindu.com/business/Industry/real-money-gaming-firms-wind-down-operations/article69965196.ece

‍