#FactCheck: Fake viral AI video captures a real-time bridge failure incident in Bihar
Executive Summary:
A video went viral on social media claiming to show a bridge collapsing in Bihar. The video prompted panic and discussions across various social media platforms. However, an exhaustive inquiry determined this was not real video but AI-generated content engineered to look like a real bridge collapse. This is a clear case of misinformation being harvested to create panic and ambiguity.
Claim:
The viral video shows a real bridge collapse in Bihar, indicating possible infrastructure failure or a recent incident in the state.
Fact Check:
Upon examination of the viral video, various visual anomalies were highlighted, such as unnatural movements, disappearing people, and unusual debris behavior which suggested the footage was generated artificially. We used Hive AI Detector for AI detection, and it confirmed this, labelling the content as 99.9% AI. It is also noted that there is the absence of realism with the environment and some abrupt animation like effects that would not typically occur in actual footage.
No valid news outlet or government agency reported a recent bridge collapse in Bihar. All these factors clearly verify that the video is made up and not real, designed to mislead viewers into thinking it was a real-life disaster, utilizing artificial intelligence.
Conclusion:
The viral video is a fake and confirmed to be AI-generated. It falsely claims to show a bridge collapsing in Bihar. This kind of video fosters misinformation and illustrates a growing concern about using AI-generated videos to mislead viewers.
Claim: A recent viral video captures a real-time bridge failure incident in Bihar.
Claimed On: Social Media
Fact Check: False and Misleading
Related Blogs
Introduction
The use of AI in content production, especially images and videos, is changing the foundations of evidence. AI-generated videos and images can mirror a person’s facial features, voice, or actions with a level of fidelity to which the average individual may not be able to distinguish real from fake. The ability to provide creative solutions is indeed a beneficial aspect of this technology. However, its misuse has been rapidly escalating over recent years. This creates threats to privacy and dignity, and facilitates the creation of dis/misinformation. Its real-world consequences are the manipulation of elections, national security threats, and the erosion of trust in society.
Why India Needs Deepfake Regulation
Deepfake regulation is urgently needed in India, evidenced by the recent Rashmika Mandanna incident, where a hoax deepfake of an actress created a scandal throughout the country. This was the first time that an individual's image was superimposed on the body of another woman in a viral deepfake video that fooled many viewers and created outrage among those who were deceived by the video. The incident even led to law enforcement agencies issuing warnings to the public about the dangers of manipulated media.
This was not an isolated incident; many influencers, actors, leaders and common people have fallen victim to deepfake pornography, deepfake speech scams, defraudations, and other malicious uses of deepfake technology. The rapid proliferation of deepfake technology is outpacing any efforts by lawmakers to regulate its widespread use. In this regard, a Private Member’s Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha in its Winter Session. This proposal was presented to the Lok Sabha as an individual MP's Private Member's Bill. Even though these have had a low rate of success in being passed into law historically, they do provide an opportunity for the government to take notice of and respond to emerging issues. In fact, Private Member's Bills have been the catalyst for government action on many important matters and have also provided an avenue for parliamentary discussion and future policy creation. The introduction of this Bill demonstrates the importance of addressing the public concern surrounding digital impersonation and demonstrates that the Parliament acknowledges digital deepfakes to be a significant concern and, therefore, in need of a legislative framework to combat them.
Key Features Proposed by the New Deepfake Regulation Bill
The proposed legislation aims to create a strong legal structure around the creation, distribution and use of deepfake content in India. Its five core proposals are:
1. Prior Consent Requirement: individuals must give their written approval before producing or distributing deepfake media, including digital representations of themselves, as well as their faces, images, likenesses and voices. This aims to protect women, celebrities, minors, and everyday citizens against the use of their identities with the intent to harm them or their reputations or to harass them through the production of deepfakes.
2. Penalties for Malicious Deepfakes: Serious criminal consequences should be placed for creating or sharing deepfake media, particularly when it is intended to cause harm (defame, harass, impersonate, deceive or manipulate another person). The Bill also addresses financially fraudulent use of deepfakes, political misinformation, interfering with elections and other types of explicit AI-generated media.
3. Establishment of a Deepfake Task Force: To look at the potential impact of deepfakes on national security, elections and public order, as well as on public safety and privacy. This group will work with academic institutions, AI research labs and technology companies to create advanced tools for the detection of deepfakes and establish best practices for the safe and responsible use of generative AI.
4. Creation of a Deepfake Detection and Awareness Fund: To assist with the development of tools for detecting deepfakes, increasing the capacity of law enforcement agencies to investigate cybercrime, promoting public awareness of deepfakes through national campaigns, and funding research on artificial intelligence safety and misinformation.
How Other Countries Are Handling Deepfakes
1. United States
Many States in the United States, including California and Texas, have enacted laws to prohibit the use of politically deceptive deepfakes during elections. Additionally, the Federal Government is currently developing regulations requiring that AI-generated content be clearly labelled. Social Media Platforms are also being encouraged to implement a requirement for users to disclose deepfakes.
2. United Kingdom
In the United Kingdom, it is illegal to create or distribute intimate deepfake images without consent; violators face jail time. The Online Safety Act emphasises the accountability of digital media providers by requiring them to identify, eliminate, and avert harmful synthetic content, which makes their role in curating safe environments all the more important.
3. European Union:
The EU has enacted the EU AI Act, which governs the use of deepfakes by requiring an explicit label to be affixed to any AI-generated content. The absence of a label would subject an offending party to potentially severe regulatory consequences; therefore, any platform wishing to do business in the EU should evaluate the risks associated with deepfakes and adhere strictly to the EU's guidelines for transparency regarding manipulated media.
4. China:
China has among the most rigorous regulations regarding deepfakes anywhere on the planet. All AI-manipulated media will have to be marked with a visible watermark, users will have to authenticate their identities prior to being allowed to use advanced AI tools, and online platforms have a legal requirement to take proactive measures to identify and remove synthetic materials from circulation.
Conclusion
Deepfake technology has the potential to be one of the greatest (and most dangerous) innovations of AI technology. There is much to learn from incidents such as that involving Rashmika Mandanna, as well as the proliferation of deepfake technology that abuses globally, demonstrating how easily truth can be altered in the digital realm. The new Private Member's Bill created by India seeks to provide for a comprehensive framework to address these abuses based on prior consent, penalties that actually work, technical preparedness, and public education/awareness. With other nations of the world moving towards increased regulation of AI technology, proposals such as this provide a direction for India to become a leader in the field of responsible digital governance.
References
- https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/lok-sabha-introduces-bill-to-regulate-deepfake-content-with-consent-rules-9761943
- https://m.economictimes.com/news/india/shiv-sena-mp-introduces-private-members-bill-to-regulate-deepfakes/articleshow/125802794.cms
- https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-67305557
- https://www.akingump.com/en/insights/blogs/ag-data-dive/california-deepfake-laws-first-in-country-to-take-effect
- https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-21-165/
- https://www.mishcon.com/news/when-ai-impersonates-taking-action-against-deepfakes-in-the-uk#:~:text=As%20of%2031%20January%202024,of%20intimate%20deepfakes%20without%20consent.
- https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-tech-ai-deepfakes-labeling-rules-images-elections-iti-c2pa/
- https://www.reuters.com/article/technology/china-seeks-to-root-out-fake-news-and-deepfakes-with-new-online-content-rules-idUSKBN1Y30VT/
Introduction
Established in the US, one of the world’s largest cab networks came into existence in 2010 and, since its inception, has expanded all over the globe with operations in 10,000 cities across 71 countries. It made a remarkable start in India in 2017 and, since then, has seen a rise in the customers and drivers for the company. India is among the largest markets for Uber, with 600,000 monthly drivers and 8.5 million monthly riders.
GeM
Government e-Marketplace (GeM) is a one-stop portal to facilitate online procurement of common-use Goods & Services required by various Government Departments / Organizations / PSUs. GeM aims to enhance transparency, efficiency and speed in public procurement. It provides the tools of e-bidding, reverses e-auction and demand aggregation to facilitate government users achieve the best value for their money. Government e-Marketplace owes its genesis to the recommendations of two Groups of Secretaries to the Prime Minister in January 2016. They recommended setting up a dedicated e-market for different goods & services procured or sold by Government/PSUs besides reforming DGS&D. Subsequently, the Finance Minister, in his Budget speech for FY 2016-17, announced setting up of a technology-driven platform to facilitate procurement of goods and services by various Ministries and agencies of the Government. The portal was launched on 9th August 2016 by the Commerce & Industry Minister.
Uber-GeM collaboration
The cab network giant has registered on the portal of the Government E-marketplace and has declared that it will offer its services to Government officials from Ministries and PSUs. The project is currently in its pilot phase and shall be executed systematically to cover all the ministries and PSUs in the nation. The officials can book cabs at a fixed price with no cancellation or surge fees on the rides. The authorised officials will be able to book a cab from the portal and select from the list of drivers available. It will be a cashless/cardless ride for the officials; additional vehicle categories for government riders have been added, namely, GeM Yatraa Hatch and GeM Yatraa Sedan, and there will be hourly rentals for multiple-stops, allowing the government officials to enjoy the flexible and easily accessible network of cabs in major cities.
Advantages
Such collaboration between Government institutions and corporates will go a long way to secure a stable equilibrium in the market. Uber, a US-based company, enjoys a vast user base in India and has created new job avenues. The advantages of the collaboration between GeM and Uber are as follows-
Easy accessibility
This will undoubtedly provide ease in accessibility in terms of being in a new place, and language barriers will no longer exist with such options for Government officials.
Increased jobs for drivers
With more cabs being engaged with ministries and PSUs, it is pertinent that the requirement for drivers will grow, thus increasing the employability rate in India and allowing the user to have an uninterrupted experience.
Ease of travel and commuting
This move will provide flexibility, thus leading to more ease in travel in cases of emergencies or places inaccessible by trains or other modes of transport.
Rise in travel and tourism
Coupled with the other factors, the opportunities for the users to visit different places will be an added advantage which will help boost the tourism industry, thus creating a balance in the market.
Sustainable Government corporate relationship
Such collaborations between the government and corporates will be substantial, signifying the ease of doing business in India. They will also act as a beacon of example for compliance with opportunities for the other companies and stakeholders.
Opportunities for collaboration with ingenious start-ups
With such major corporate joining hands with the government, the indigenous start-ups will have various opportunities to engage with companies and recreate similar businesses rooted in India, thus transforming the economy.
Conclusion
Transportation and communication play a vital role in our lives, thus, such collaboration will go a long way in creating a better and more uniform user experience in the country. This also goes a long way to showcase that the Governmental platforms also offer services of a global standard. Such portals exist in South Korea, Singapore, the US and Europe. The network of cabs can only be sustained using the locals as drivers, hence these collaborations are win-win for all as the market dynamics are improving, employability will increase, and improved user experience will be seen.
Introduction: Reasons Why These Amendments Have Been Suggested.
The suggested changes in the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, are the much-needed regulatory reaction to the blistering emergence of synthetic information and deepfakes. These reforms are due to the pressing necessity to govern risks within the digital ecosystem as opposed to regular reformation.
The Emergence of the Digital Menace
Generative AI tools have also facilitated the generation of very realistic images, videos, audio, and text in recent years. Such artificial media have been abused to portray people in situations they are not in or in statements they have never said. The market size is expected to have a compound annual growth rate(CAGR) from 2025 to 2031 of 37.57%, resulting in a market volume of US$400.00 bn by 2031. Therefore, tight regulatory controls are necessary to curb a high prevalence of harm in the Indian digital world.
The Gap in Law and Institution
None of the IT Rules, 2021, clearly addressed synthetic content. Although the Information Technology Act, 2000 dealt with identity theft, impersonation and violation of privacy, the intermediaries were not explicitly obligated on artificial media. This left a loophole in enforcement, particularly since AI-generated content might get around the old system of moderation. These amendments bring India closer to the international standards, including the EU AI Act, which requires transparency and labelling of AI-driven content. India addresses such requirements and adapts to local constitutional and digital ecosystem needs.
II. Explanation of the Amendments
The amendments of 2025 present five alternative changes in the current IT Rules framework, which address various areas of synthetic media regulation.
A. Definitional Clarification: Synthetic Generation of Information Introduction.
Rule 2(1)(wa) Amendment:
The amendments provide an all-inclusive definition of what is meant by “synthetically generated information” as information, which is created, or produced, changed or distorted with the use of a computer resource, in a way that such information can reasonably be perceived to be genuine. This definition is intentionally broad and is not limited to deepfakes in the strict sense but to any artificial media that has gone through algorithmic manipulation in order to have a semblance of authenticity.
Expansion of Legal Scope:
Rule 2(1A) also makes it clear that any mention of information in the context of unlawful acts, namely, including categories listed in Rule 3(1)(b), Rule 3(1)(d), Rule 4(2), and Rule 4(4), should be understood to mean synthetically generated information. This is a pivotal interpretative protection that does not allow intermediaries to purport that synthetic versions of illegal material are not under the control of the regulation since they are algorithmic creations and not descriptions of what actually occurred.
B. Safe Harbour Protection and Content Removal Requirements
Amendment, rule 3(1)(b)- Safe Harbour Clarification:
The amendments add a certain proviso to the Rule (3) (1)(b) that explains a deletion or facilitation of access of synthetically produced information (or any information falling within specified categories) which the intermediaries have made in good faith as part of reasonable endeavours or at the receipt of a complaint shall not be considered a breach of the Section 79(2) (a) or (b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. This coverage is relevant especially since it insures the intermediaries against liability in situations where they censor the synthetic contents in advance of a court ruling or governmental warnings.
C. Labelling and Metadata Requirements that are mandatory on Intermediaries that enable the creation of synthetic content
The amendments establish a new framework of due diligence in Rule 3(3) on the case of intermediaries that offer tools to generate, modify, or alter the synthetically generated information. Two fundamental requirements are laid down.
- The generated information must be prominently labelled or embedded with a permanent, unique metadata or identifier. The label or metadata must be:
- Visibly displayed or made audible in a prominent manner on or within that synthetically generated information.
- It should cover at least 10% of the surface of the visual display or, in the case of audio content, during the initial 10% of its duration.
- It can be used to immediately identify that such information is synthetically generated information which has been created, generated, modified, or altered using the computer resource of the intermediary.
- The intermediary in clause (a) shall not enable modification, suppression or removal of such label, permanent unique metadata or identifier, by whatever name called.
D. Important Social Media Intermediaries- Pre-Publication Checking Responsibilities
The amendments present a three-step verification mechanism, under Rule 4(1A), to Significant Social Media Intermediaries (SSMIs), which enables displaying, uploading or publishing on its computer resource before such display, uploading, or publication has to follow three steps.
Step 1- User Declaration: It should compel the users to indicate whether the materials they are posting are synthetically created. This puts the first burden on users.
Step 2-Technical Verification: To ensure that the user is truly valid, the SSMIs need to provide reasonable technical means, such as automated tools or other applications. This duty is contextual and would be based on the nature, format and source of content. It does not allow intermediaries to escape when it is known that not every type of content can be verified using the same standards.
Step 3- Prominent Labelling: In case the synthetic origin is verified by user declaration or technical verification, SSMIs should have a notice or label that is prominently displayed to be seen by users before publication.
The amendments provide a better system of accountability and set that intermediaries will be found to have failed due diligence in a case where it is established that they either knowingly permitted, encouraged or otherwise failed to act on synthetically produced information in contravention of these requirements. This brings in an aspect of knowledge, and intermediaries cannot use accidental errors as an excuse for non-compliance.
An explanation clause makes it clear that SSMIs should also make reasonable and proportionate technical measures to check user declarations and keep no synthetic content published without adequate declaration or labelling. This eliminates confusion on the role of the intermediaries with respect to making declarations.
III. Attributes of The Amendment Framework
- Precision in Balancing Innovation and Accountability.
The amendments have commendably balanced two extreme regulatory postures by neither prohibiting nor allowing the synthetic media to run out of control. It has recognised the legitimate use of synthetic media creation in entertainment, education, research and artistic expression by adopting a transparent and traceable mandate that preserves innovation while ensuring accountability.
- Overt Acceptance of the Intermediary Liability and Reverse Onus of Knowledge
Rule 4(1A) gives a highly significant deeming rule; in cases where the intermediary permits or refrains from acting with respect to the synthetic content knowing that the rules are violated, it will be considered as having failed to comply with the due diligence provisions. This description closes any loopholes in unscrupulous supervision where intermediaries can be able to argue that they did so. Standard of scienter promotes material investment in the detection devices and censor mechanisms that have been in place to offer security to the platforms that have sound systems, albeit the fact that the tools fail to capture violations at times.
- Clarity Through Definition and Interpretive Guidance
The cautious definition of the term “synthetically generated information” and the guidance that is provided in Rule 2(1A) is an admirable attempt to solve confusion in the previous regulatory framework. Instead of having to go through conflicting case law or regulatory direction, the amendments give specific definitional limits. The purposefully broad formulation (artificially or algorithmically created, generated, modified or altered) makes sure that the framework is not avoided by semantic games over what is considered to be a real synthetic content versus a slight algorithmic alteration.
- Insurance of non-accountability but encourages preventative moderation
The safe harbour clarification of the Rule 3(1)(b) amendment clearly safeguards the intermediaries who voluntarily dismiss the synthetic content without a court order or government notification. It is an important incentive scheme that prompts platforms to implement sound self-regulation measures. In the absence of such protection, platforms may also make rational decisions to stay in a passive stance of compliance, only deleting content under the pressure of an external authority, thus making them more effective in keeping users safe against dangerous synthetic media.
IV. Conclusion
The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2025 suggest a structured, transparent, and accountable execution of curbing the rising predicaments of synthetic media and deepfakes. The amendments deal with the regulatory and interpretative gaps that have always existed in determining what should be considered as synthetically generated information, the intermediary liabilities and the mandatory labelling and metadata requirement. Safe-harbour protection will encourage the moderation proactively, and a scienter-based liability rule will not permit the intermediaries to escape liability when they are aware of the non-compliance but tolerate such non-compliance. The idea to introduce pre-publication verification of Significant Social Media Intermediaries adds the responsibility to users and due diligence to the platform. Overall, the amendments provide a reasonable balance between innovation and regulation, make the process more open with its proper definitions, promote responsible conduct on the platform and transform India and the new standards in the sphere of synthetic media regulation. They collaborate to enhance the verisimilitude, defence of the users, and visibility of the systems of the digital ecosystem of India.
V. References
2. https://www.statista.com/outlook/tmo/artificial-intelligence/generative-ai/worldwide
