#FactCheck: Video of Jagannath Rath Yatra in Puri Falsely Shared as Anti-Reservation Protest at Jantar Mantar

Introduction

The war over children and social media, once mostly waged in headlines, committee hearings, and video clips of executives begging apologies from distraught families, has officially reached to courts. This past Monday, August 26, 2026, Meta reportedly agreed to settle for an estimated $18 billion for the sprawling, multi-state class action suit that accused the social media titan of intentionally designing Instagram and Facebook to be addictive for children and of actively failing to shield them from child abuse imagery, disordered eating websites and much more. This record $18 billion, one of the largest ever obtained against a consumer-facing business, occurred just over a week into a high-profile trial in Oakland, in which four states pursued nearly $1.4 trillion in damages against Meta. Even more important than the headline figure, though, is what actually lies in the fine print (or what the settlement leaves distinctly out): the future of teen safety law.

What Meta agreed to pay  and to whom

The settlement resolves claims brought jointly by 29 states in 2023, which eventually grew into a coalition of 47 states, the District of Columbia, and several U.S. territories. Just over $17 billion goes toward that multistate case, with the remainder settling claims from other states. Notably, three states, Texas, New Mexico, and Florida, settled separately. Texas alone secured over $1 billion, on top of the $1.4 billion Meta paid the state in 2024 over biometric data misuse. New Mexico had already won its own jury trial in March 2026, when jurors found Meta violated the state's consumer protection law and ordered a $375 million penalty; a judge later added further penalties, pushing that case's total past $560 million.

Under the multistate deal, there's a revealing structural detail: Meta will hand over only 70% of the total (about $12.7 billion) unless TikTok and YouTube also agree to adopt matching safety measures, daily time limits, night mode, and age assurance tools. The remaining 30% ($5.3 billion) is contingent on rivals falling in line and paying comparable sums. In other words, Meta is using its own settlement as leverage to drag competitors into the same regulatory box, a move Meta's chief legal officer, C.J. Mahoney, framed as setting "the right path forward for our whole industry".

Changes made by the Platform

Beyond the check, Meta has committed to a list of design changes for teen accounts:

• A default two-hour daily screen-time limit, with prompts every 15 minutes encouraging "intentional use"
• Accounts that Meta flags belonging to minors will be blocked from the apps overnight (midnight–6 a.m.)
• Notifications muted during school hours (8 a.m.–3 p.m.)
• Teens will no longer see "like" counts on their own or others' posts by default
• Continued investment in AI-driven age-detection technology — the "adult classifier" system Meta has been building since 2021, which scans behavioral signals (who you follow, what you engage with, even "happy birthday" posts) to guess whether an account belongs to a minor, regardless of the birthday entered at signup

Meta has also publicly called on app stores to shoulder more of the age-verification burden themselves, a signal that the next legal battleground may shift from the apps themselves to the operating systems and stores that distribute them.

Why critics say the "money machine" walks away largely intact

Here is the uncomfortable arithmetic several legal analysts have pointed out: Meta's $18 billion is being paid out over 10 years, against a company whose 2025 revenue exceeded $200 billion. As one technology litigator told TechCrunch, spreading the payment over a decade "really does blunt the financial impact of the large number". Meta did not admit wrongdoing. No executive faces personal liability. And crucially, the design changes Meta agreed to are largely features it had already begun rolling out voluntarily: teen accounts, PG-13 content defaults, and AI age detection, meaning the settlement in some ways ratifies Meta's existing roadmap rather than forcing a fundamentally different business model. Child-safety advocates have voiced similar scepticism. As one advocacy group leader put it around Meta's earlier safety announcements, such moves are as much about managing the narrative as they are about substantive protection.

Work in Progress

Perhaps the most important vulnerability in the settlement is this: nearly every protection Meta's promise depends on accurately knowing who is a teenager. Age-verification and age-prediction technology remains genuinely unreliable. Meta itself has never disclosed hard accuracy figures for its AI "adult classifier", and outside researchers have long warned that both self-declared birthdates and AI inference are trivially gamed by tech-savvy teens — and prone to misclassifying adults. If the underlying age-detection layer is porous, the two-hour limits, overnight blackouts, and muted like counts are protections that exist only for the users who show up to be counted.

Why this case is really about digital ID

This is where the story stops being just a corporate-liability story and becomes a civil-liberties one. The original complaint from California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey explicitly asked the court to compel Meta to implement "multi-layered age verification at account sign-up" going beyond birthdates to methods like submitting student IDs. As digital-rights outlet Reclaim The Net has argued, verifying that some users are minors necessarily means putting every user through an identity check because the system can't know who's underage without checking everyone. That's the quiet trade-off sitting inside nearly every child-safety proposal now moving through state legislatures and courts: protecting kids online, as currently conceived by regulators, increasingly means asking adults to prove who they are just to open an app.

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who is overseeing the underlying federal case, took the unusual step of empanelling an advisory jury to weigh in on specific factual questions even as settlement talks proceeded, which is a sign that courts are trying to build a durable evidentiary record regardless of how individual cases resolve. That record, which is an unsealed internal research, executive testimony, and coroners' findings cited in court filings  is exactly the kind of material state and federal lawmakers will cite for years as they draft the next generation of age-verification and social media laws.

Conclusion

The Meta settlement is unlikely to be the last of its kind. Thousands of similar lawsuits from families, school districts, and other states remain active, and the California bellwether trial's findings will likely shape settlement math for TikTok, YouTube, and Snap. Expect three parallel tracks to accelerate: state legislatures pushing app-store-level age verification; plaintiffs' lawyers using unsealed Meta documents as templates for the next wave of suits; and Meta itself continuing to invest in AI-based age detection partly to protect teens and partly to insulate itself from the next $18 billion bill. Whether that technology can be built without turning every internet user into someone who has to prove their age at the door is the legal and technological question that will define this fight for the next decade.

Sources

• Meta settles landmark state child harm claims for $18 billion – CNN Business
• Meta's $18B child-safety deal hinges on age-verification tech that doesn't work well – TechCrunch
• Meta to pay 47 states up to $17.1B in landmark child safety settlement – Stateline
• Meta's $18bn settlement: How social platforms will change for child users – Al Jazeera
• Meta to pay Texas $1 billion in child safety case – The Texas Tribune
• Meta Trial Opens as States Demand Age Verification – Reclaim The Net
• States' complaint against Meta (PDF) – Reclaim The Net document archive
• Jury finds Meta's platforms harmful to children in first wave of lawsuits – PBS NewsHour / AP
• Instagram's AI-based teen account detection – TechCrunch

‍

Executive Summary

‍
A video featuring Union Defence Minister Rajnath Singh is being widely circulated on social media with the claim that he issued a strict warning against student protesters. In the viral clip, Singh is allegedly heard saying that the government would not tolerate “anarchy” and that strict action would be taken against those blocking roads, disturbing public order, or damaging government property. CyberPeace Research Wing’s research found the claim to be false. The research revealed that the original video available on Rajnath Singh’s official YouTube channel was digitally altered by adding AI-generated audio. The statement heard in the viral video is not genuine and was created using artificial intelligence.

‍

Claim:

‍

An account on social media platform X (formerly Twitter), with the username @ForumDefence, shared a video on July 22, 2026, claiming that Union Defence Minister Rajnath Singh had issued a warning regarding the ongoing student protest. The video features an AI-generated voice attributed to Rajnath Singh, in which he is allegedly heard saying: “Taking advantage of the student movement, the unrest and violence being spread over the past few days are strongly condemned by the government. Expressing one’s views is a democratic right, but breaking the law and creating difficulties for the public in its name will not be tolerated. The government will not tolerate such anarchy. Anyone attempting to block roads, disturb peace, or damage government property will face strict action.”

The link, archive link and screenshot of the post are provided below:

https://x.com/ForumDefence/status/2079960247888756775

https://archive.ph/2DkSj

‍

‍

Fact Check:

‍

To verify the viral claim, the Desk conducted a keyword search on Google. However, no credible news report or official statement was found confirming that Rajnath Singh had made such remarks regarding the student protest.

‍

‍

During further research, the Desk found the original video on the official YouTube channel of Union Defence Minister Rajnath Singh. A comparison between the viral clip and the original video showed that the statements attributed to Singh in the viral video did not match his actual remarks. In the original video, Rajnath Singh was speaking about the ongoing protests in Delhi. He said that the protests were a matter of serious concern and expressed that it was unfortunate that some people were attempting to use students and youth as a political tool for their own interests.

He further stated that the government was committed to addressing the concerns of students and youth, and that dialogue and discussion were the appropriate ways to resolve issues in a democracy.

The original video from Rajnath Singh’s official YouTube channel can be accessed here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w73iPTEfKCA

‍

‍

Further analysis of the viral video’s audio was conducted using the AI detection tool Resemble AI. The analysis indicated that the audio had a 99.10 per cent probability of being AI-generated.

‍

‍

The Desk also examined the viral video using the AI detection tool HIVE Moderation. The analysis suggested that the speech used in the video had an 88.1 per cent probability of being AI-generated.

‍

‍

Conclusion:

‍

The research established that the viral video featuring Union Defence Minister Rajnath Singh has been digitally manipulated by adding AI-generated audio. The statement attributed to Singh regarding strict action against student protesters is not genuine. The original video available on Rajnath Singh’s official YouTube channel contains different remarks, and the viral clip has been circulated with a false and misleading claim.

‍

Executive Summary:

‍

A viral social media video falsely claims that Meta AI reads all WhatsApp group and individual chats by default, and that enabling “Advanced Chat Privacy” can stop this. On performing  reverse image search we found a blog post of WhatsApp which was posted in the month of April 2025 which claims that all personal and group chats remain protected with end to end (E2E) encryption, accessible only to the sender and recipient. Meta AI can interact only with messages explicitly sent to it or tagged with @MetaAI. The “Advanced Chat Privacy” feature is designed to prevent external sharing of chats, not to restrict Meta AI access. Therefore, the viral claim is misleading and factually incorrect, aimed at creating unnecessary fear among users.

‍

Claim:

‍

A viral social media video [archived link] alleges that Meta AI is actively accessing private conversations on WhatsApp, including both group and individual chats, due to the current default settings. The video further claims that users can safeguard their privacy by enabling the “Advanced Chat Privacy” feature, which purportedly prevents such access.

‍

‍

Fact Check:

‍

‍

Upon doing reverse image search from the keyframe of the viral video, we found a WhatsApp blog post from April 2025 that explains new privacy features to help users control their chats and data. It states that Meta AI can only see messages directly sent to it or tagged with @Meta AI. All personal and group chats are secured with end-to-end encryption, so only the sender and receiver can read them. The "Advanced Chat Privacy" setting helps stop chats from being shared outside WhatsApp, like blocking exports or auto-downloads, but it doesn’t affect Meta AI since it’s already blocked from reading chats. This shows the viral claim is false and meant to confuse people.

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

Conclusion: 

‍

The claim that Meta AI is reading WhatsApp Group Chats and that enabling the "Advance Chat Privacy" setting can prevent this is false and misleading. WhatsApp has officially confirmed that Meta AI only accesses messages explicitly shared with it, and all chats remain protected by end-to-end encryption, ensuring privacy. The "Advanced Chat Privacy" setting does not relate to Meta AI access, as it is already restricted by default.

‍

• Claim: Viral social media video claims that WhatsApp Group Chats are being read by Meta AI due to current settings, and enabling the "Advance Chat Privacy" setting can prevent this.
• Claimed On: Social Media
• Fact Check: False and Misleading

‍