#FactCheck: Viral AI video being shared online claiming Iran has destroyed Tel Aviv Ben Gurion Airport in an Iranian missile strike

Introduction

At 4 pm on August 3, 2026, representatives of Meta, X, Snapchat and Google walked into a room in Parliament to face India's Standing Committee on Communications and Information Technology. On paper, it looked like one more instance of a routine that has repeated for half a decade: a Big Tech company gets called in, questioned, and sent away with a warning. But this summons, and the fortnight of scrutiny that has followed it, reveals something different about the direction of India's digital governance in 2026. The government's question has stopped being, "Will you take this post down?" It has increasingly become, "How does your platform actually work, and can we redesign the parts we don't like?"

The trigger: A technical glitch that became a systemic complaint

The proximate cause of the August 3 hearing was almost trivial by itself. On July 23, Prime Minister Narendra Modi posted a video on Instagram and Facebook about the government's crackdown on examination paper leaks. Meta briefly restricted the Facebook version before restoring it, blaming the removal on a technical error in its automated filters.

That explanation didn't satisfy the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY), which called it inadequate, and the incident became the occasion for a much broader reckoning. Committee chairperson Nishikant Dubey summoned Meta, X, Snapchat and Google to examine three things: the online safety of women and children; the data privacy of ordinary citizens, including farmers and labourers; and how far platforms actually comply with India's law-and-order requirements. Days later, MeitY brought Meta's global team in for two days of direct questioning that stretched into a third day of technical discussions covering child sexual abuse material (CSAM), deepfakes, bot accounts and, notably, the design of Instagram's content-recommendation algorithm itself.

From takedown notices to systems audits

For most of the last decade, India's approach to online harm ran through blocking orders and the "notice-and-takedown" machinery built into the IT Rules, 2021: a court or government authority flags a specific URL or post, the platform has a fixed window to act, and non-compliance risks the loss of legal immunity. It was a model built around individual pieces of content.

What is unfolding now looks structurally different. Officials aren't only asking Meta to remove a video; they are asking why its recommendation systems keep resurfacing flagged material, why "verified" accounts belonging to prominent or official figures don't have extra layers of human review before restriction, and why bot-detection and CSAM-screening pipelines aren't catching harmful content before it spreads. The Supreme Court-monitored committee tracking "digital arrest" fraud has gone further still, directing MeitY, the Department of Telecommunications and the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) to study time-based restrictions on audio and video calls altogether, a proposal that touches the basic architecture of how calling features work, not any single conversation.

Parliament's committee has separately pushed for a national registration system that would require every intermediary operating in India to publicly list its grievance officer, nodal contact and compliance officer as a response to law enforcement's repeated difficulty simply reaching a platform when something goes wrong. It has also asked for tighter regulation of digital advertising, which officials say is routinely exploited for cyber fraud, and for rules under Section 67C of the IT Act governing how long intermediaries must preserve user data. None of this is about any one post; it is about redesigning the infrastructure platforms use to operate in India.

Messaging apps and the encryption problem

Nowhere is the shift from "content" to "architecture" clearer than in the government's dealings with peer-to-peer messaging platforms. WhatsApp has spent years contesting the traceability requirement under Rule 4(2) of the IT Rules in the Delhi High Court, arguing it would rather exit India than build a permanent capability to identify the "first originator" of every message since doing so would mean re-engineering its end-to-end encryption for all users, not just suspects.

That fight has resurfaced in a new form. In a submission to the parliamentary committee, WhatsApp argued that new rules requiring platforms to detect and label AI-generated "synthetic" content cannot technically apply inside encrypted chats because no one outside a conversation "not even WhatsApp" can see what's inside it. Signal has proven even harder to engage with: MeitY told the committee it has struggled to establish formal contact with the app, which does not publicly list a grievance officer, exposing how little leverage the government currently has over encrypted, minimally staffed platforms compared with advertising-funded giants like Meta and Google. The proposal to cap or restrict call durations to fight "digital arrest" scams is, in effect, an attempt to regulate a messaging feature rather than any message sent through it, perhaps the clearest sign yet that the fight has moved from posts to plumbing.

The future of "safe harbour"

Underpinning all of this is Section 79 of the IT Act,  the "safe harbour" clause that shields platforms from liability for what their users post, provided they exercise due diligence. That protection is now being squeezed from three directions at once. The parliamentary committee has unanimously recommended withdrawing safe harbour from platforms that don't comply with Indian law and said it should be pulled specifically from Meta unless its CEO apologises over the PM's video takedown, though a committee cannot itself revoke a statutory protection; only Parliament can amend Section 79. Separately, the Supreme Court-monitored panel on digital-arrest fraud is examining an explicit provision making intermediaries liable for the misuse of their platforms so that fraud victims could claim compensation directly. And MeitY's draft Second Amendment Rules, circulated in March 2026, go furthest of all: they propose making safe harbour conditional on real-time compliance with executive directions, rather than a general protection available to any platform that follows published rules, which is a more direct, command-driven model than even the European Union's Digital Services Act.

Why this matters beyond the headlines

For the ordinary internet user, none of this is abstract. A registration-and-disclosure regime, together with faster and more accountable grievance handling, could make it easier to get genuinely harmful content addressed. But architecture-level intervention cuts both ways. Rules aimed at traceability or at labelling encrypted content risk weakening the very privacy protections that make messaging apps trustworthy in the first place, and a safe harbour that hinges on obeying informal executive directions, rather than settled published law, hands the government far more day-to-day leverage over what stays online. The Supreme Court has listed the digital-arrest matter for September 16; how it, and Parliament, ultimately treat Section 79 will decide whether India's platforms remain neutral pipes carrying other people's speech or become extensions of state enforcement.

Conclusion

India’s digital-governance battle is no longer confined to individual posts or takedown orders. It is increasingly about the architecture beneath the internet: recommendation engines, encryption, verification, data retention and safe-harbour protections. That shift may strengthen accountability and user safety, but it also expands the state’s influence over digital infrastructure. As Parliament and the Supreme Court confront these questions, India faces a fundamental choice: regulate platforms or reshape how they operate.

Sources

• Parliament panel summons Meta, X, Google, Snapchat over digital safety — Hindustan Times
• Parliamentary panel summons Meta, Google, X and Snapchat over social media regulation — Economic Times
• Parliamentary Panel Summons Meta, X, Google on Digital Safety Rules — Asianet Newsable
• Panel Summons Meta, X, Snapchat, Google for Safety Review — New Kerala
• Meta, X, Google and Snapchat summoned by parliamentary panel on August 3 — BestMediaInfo

‍

In a recent ruling, a U.S. federal judge sided with Meta in a copyright lawsuit brought by a group of prominent authors who alleged that their works were illegally used to train Meta’s LLaMA language model. While this seems like a significant legal victory for the tech giant, it may not be so. Rather, this is a good case study for creators in the USA to refine their legal strategies and for policymakers worldwide to act quickly to shape the rules of engagement between AI and intellectual property.

The Case: Meta vs. Authors

In Kadrey v. Meta, the plaintiffs alleged that Meta trained its LLaMA models on pirated copies of their books, violating copyright law. However, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria ruled that the authors failed to prove two critical things: that their copyrighted works had been used in a way that harmed their market and that such use was not “transformative.” In fact, the judge ruled that converting text into numerical representations to train an AI was sufficiently transformative under the U.S. fair use doctrine. He also noted that the authors’ failure to demonstrate economic harm undermined their claims. Importantly, he clarified that this ruling does not mean that all AI training data usage is lawful, only that the plaintiffs didn’t make a strong enough case.

Meta even admitted that some data was sourced from pirate sites like LibGen, but the Judge still found that fair use could apply because the usage was transformative and non-exploitative.

A Tenuous Win

Chhabria’s decision emphasised that this is not a blanket endorsement of using copyrighted content in AI training. The judgment leaned heavily on the procedural weakness of the case and not necessarily on the inherent legality of Meta’s practices.

Policy experts are warning that U.S. courts are currently interpreting AI training as fair use in narrow cases, but the rulings may not set the strongest judicial precedent. The application of law could change with clearer evidence of commercial harm or a more direct use of content. 

Moreover, the ruling does not address whether authors or publishers should have the right to opt out of AI model training, a concern that is gaining momentum globally.

Implications for India

The case highlights a glaring gap in India’s copyright regime: it is outdated. Since most AI companies are located in the U.S., courts have had the opportunity to examine copyright in the context of AI-generated content. India has yet to start. Recently, news agency ANI filed a case alleging copyright infringement against OpenAI for training on its copyrighted material. However, the case is only at an interim stage. The final outcome of the case will have a significant impact on the legality of these language models being able to use copyrighted material for training.

Considering that India aims to develop “state-of-the-art foundational AI models trained on Indian datasets” under the IndiaAI Mission, the lack of clear legal guidance on what constitutes fair dealing when using copyrighted material for AI training is a significant gap.  

Thus, key points of consideration for policymakers include: 

• Need for Fair Dealing Clarity: India’s fair-dealing provisions under the Copyright Act, 1957, are narrower than U.S. fair use. The doctrine may have to be reviewed to strike a balance between this law and the requirement of diverse datasets to develop foundational models rooted in Indian contexts. A parallel concern regarding data privacy also arises. 
• Push for Opt-Out or Licensing Mechanisms: India should consider whether to introduce a framework that requires companies to license training data or provide an opt-out system for creators, especially given the volume of Indian content being scraped by global AI systems.
• Digital Public Infrastructure for AI: India’s policymakers could take this opportunity to invest in public datasets, especially in regional languages, that are both high quality and legally safe for AI training.
• Protecting Local Creators: India needs to ensure that its authors, filmmakers, educators and journalists are protected from having their work repurposed without compensation, since power asymmetries between Big Tech and local creators can lead to exploitation of the latter.

Conclusion

The ruling in Meta’s favour is just one win for the developer. The real questions about consent, compensation and creative control remain unanswered. Meanwhile, the lesson for India is urgent: it needs AI policies that balance innovation with creator rights and provide legal certainty and ethical safeguards as it accelerates its AI ecosystem. Further, as global tech firms race ahead, India must not remain a passive data source; it must set the terms of its digital future. This will help the country move a step closer to achieving its goal of building sovereign AI capacity and becoming a hub for digital innovation.

References

• https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jun/26/meta-wins-ai-copyright-lawsuit-as-us-judge-rules-against-authors 
• https://www.wired.com/story/meta-scores-victory-ai-copyright-case/ 
• https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/25/meta-llama-ai-copyright-ruling.html 
• https://www.mondaq.com/india/copyright/1348352/what-is-fair-use-of-copyright-doctrine 
• https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2113095#:~:text=One%20of%20the%20key%20pillars,models%20trained%20on%20Indian%20datasets. ‍
• https://www.ndtvprofit.com/law-and-policy/ani-vs-openai-delhi-high-court-seeks-responses-on-copyright-infringement-charges-against-chatgpt

Introduction

The world has been riding the wave of technological advancements, and the fruits it has born have impacted our lives. Technology, by its virtue, cannot be quantified as safe or unsafe it is the application and use of technology which creates the threats. Its times like this, the importance and significance of policy framework are seen in cyberspace. Any technology can be governed by means of policies and laws only. In this blog, we explore the issues raised by the EU for the tech giants and why the Indian Govt is looking into probing Whatsapp.

EU on Big Techs

Eu has always been seen to be a strong policy maker for cyberspace, and the same can be seen from the scope, extent and compliance of GDPR. This data protection bill is the holy grail for worldwide data protection bills. Apart from the GDPR, the EU has always maintained strong compliance demographics for the big tech as most of them have originated outside of Europe, and the rights of EU citizens come into priority above anything else.

New Draft Notification

According to the draft of the new notification, Amazon, Google, Microsoft and other non-European Union cloud service providers looking to secure an EU cybersecurity label to handle sensitive data can only do so via a joint venture with an EU-based company. The document adds that the cloud service must be operated and maintained from the EU, all customer data must be stored and processed in the EU, and EU laws take precedence over non-EU laws regarding the cloud service provider. Certified cloud services are operated only by companies based in the EU, with no entity from outside the EU having effective control over the CSP (cloud service provider) to mitigate the risk of non-EU interfering powers undermining EU regulations, norms and values.

This move from the EU is still in the draft phase however, it is expected to come into action soon as issues related to data breaches of EU citizens have been reported on numerous occasions. The document said the tougher rules would apply to personal and non-personal data of particular sensitivity where a breach may have a negative impact on public order, public safety, human life or health, or the protection of intellectual property.

How will it secure the netizens?

Since the EU has been the leading policy maker in cyberspace, it is often seen that the rules and policies of the EU are often replicated around the world. Hence this move comes at a critical time as the EU is looking towards safeguarding the EU netizens and the Cyber security industry in the EU by allowing them to collaborate with big tech while maintaining compliance. Cloud services can be protected by this mechanism, thus ensuring fewer instances of data breaches, thus contributing to a dip in cyber crimes and attacks.

The Indian Govt on WhatsApp

The Indian Govt has decided to probe Whatsapp and its privacy settings. One of the Indian Whatsapp users tweeted a screenshot of WhatsApp accessing the phone’s mic even when the phone was not in use, and the app was not open even in the background. The meta-owned Social messaging platform enjoys nearly 487 million users in India, making it their biggest market. The 2018 judgement on Whatsapp and its privacy issues was a landmark judgement, but the platform is in violation of the same.

The MoS, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Rajeev Chandrashekhar, has already tweeted that the issue will be looked into and that they will be punished if the platform is seen violating the guidelines. The Digital Personal Data Protection Bill is yet to be tabled at the parliament. Still, despite the draft bill being public, big platforms must maintain the code of conduct to maintain compliance when the bill turns into an Act.

Threats for Indian Users

The Indian Whatsapp user contributes to the biggest user base un the world, and still, they are vulnerable to attacks on WhatsApp and now WhatsApp itself. The netizens are under the following potential threats –

• Data breaches
• Identity theft
• Phishing scams
• Unconsented data utilisation
• Violation of Right to Privacy
• Unauthorised flow of data outside India
• Selling of data to a third party without consent

The Indian netizen needs to stay vary of such issues and many more by practising basic cyber safety and security protocols and keeping a check on the permissions granted to apps, to keep track of one’s digital footprint.

Conclusion

Whether it’s the EU or Indian Government, it is pertinent to understand that the world powers are all working towards creating a safe and secured cyberspace for its netizens. The move made by the EU will act as a catalyst for change at a global level, as once the EU enforces the policy, the world will soon replicate it to safeguard their cyber interests, assets and netizens. The proactive stance of the Indian Government is a crucial sign that the things will not remain the same in the Indian Cyber ecosystem, and its upon the platforms and companies to ensure compliance, even in the absence of a strong legislation for cyberspace. The government is taking all steps to safeguard the Indian netizen, as the same lies in the souls and spirit of the new Digital India Bill, which will govern cyberspace in the near future. Still, till then, in order to maintain the synergy and equilibrium, it is pertinent for the platforms to be in compliance with the laws of natural justice.