#FactCheck - AI-Generated Image Falsely Linked to US Court Appearance of Venezuelan First Lady
A photo showing Cilia Flores, wife of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, with visible injuries on her face is being widely shared on social media. Users claim the image was taken during her court appearance in the United States on January 5, alleging that she was beaten before being produced before a judge. Cyber Peace Foundation’s research found that the viral image was created using AI tools and is not real.
Claim:
A Facebook user shared the image claiming it shows Venezuelan President Maduro’s wife during her US court appearance, alleging physical assault prior to her arrest. The post also makes political and religious allegations in connection with the incident.Link, archive link and screenshot
Fact Check:
The viral image appeared suspicious due to unnatural facial details and injury patterns. Given the increasing use of artificial intelligence to generate fake visuals, Vishvas News analysed the image using AI image detection tools.TruthScan assessed the image as 93% likely to be AI-generated.
Sightengine flagged the image as 77% likely to be AI-generated.
The results indicate that the image is not authentic and has been created using AI tools.
What Official Reports Say
According to a CBS News report published on January 6, Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores were produced before a federal court in Lower Manhattan, where they pleaded not guilty to drug trafficking and other charges. They are currently lodged at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn The report states that the couple was detained during a US military operation. Following this, Venezuela’s Vice President Delcy Rodríguez was sworn in as the acting president. While Cilia Flores did appear before a Manhattan court, there is no authentic image showing her with injuries during the court proceedings. Link and Screenshot
https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/venezuela-trump-maduro-charges/
Conclusion:
The image being circulated as a photo of Cilia Flores during her US court appearance is AI-generated and fake. The claim that it shows injuries inflicted on her before being produced in court is false and misleading. The viral image has no connection with real court visuals.
Related Blogs
Executive Summary
A dispute over water balloons on the day of Holi in the Uttam Nagar area of Delhi reportedly turned violent, resulting in the brutal murder of a young man named Tarun Khatik. Following the incident, a video is being widely shared on social media and linked to the murder case. In the viral video, Yogi Adityanath, Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, can be seen walking alongside Ravi Kishan, Member of Parliament from Gorakhpur. People standing along the route are seen showering flowers on them. Several users claim that the video shows the chief minister visiting the house of Tarun Khatik to meet his family.
However, research by CyberPeace found the viral claim to be misleading. Our research revealed that the video has no connection to the Tarun Khatik murder case. In fact, the video is from a Holika Dahan celebration held in Gorakhpur, which is now being shared on social media with a misleading claim.
Claim Post:
An Instagram user shared the viral video on March 10, 2026, writing: “Tarun bhai ko insaaf dilane ke liye aage aaye maananiya mukhyamantri Shri Yogi Adityanath ji.”
Fact Check:
To verify the claim, we extracted several key frames from the viral video and conducted a reverse image search using Google Lens. During the search, we found the same video posted on a Facebook account on March 2, 2026.
According to the caption of the Facebook post, the video shows a grand procession organised by the Shri Shri Holika Dahan Utsav Samiti, Pandeyhata in Gorakhpur. Yogi Adityanath attended the procession and was seen celebrating Holi with people by playing with flowers and coloured powder. During the procession, flower petals were showered on devotees, and the entire area witnessed a festive atmosphere filled with colours, devotion, and enthusiasm. A large number of people participated in the celebration, and the festival was celebrated with traditional drums and music. During further research, we also found images related to the viral video on the official X (formerly Twitter) account of Ravi Kishan. These images were shared on March 2, 2026, and the caption confirmed that they were taken during the Holika Dahan celebration in Gorakhpur.
At the end of the research, we also found the same video uploaded on March 3, 2026 on the Instagram page Local News Gorakhpur. According to the information in the post, Yogi Adityanath and several other leaders participated in the grand procession organised by the Shri Shri Holika Dahan Utsav Samiti, Pandeyhata. People celebrated Holi with flowers and coloured powder during the event.
Conclusion:
Our research found that the viral video has no connection with the Tarun Khatik murder case in Uttam Nagar, Delhi. The video actually shows Yogi Adityanath participating in a Holika Dahan celebration in Gorakhpur. Therefore, the video is being shared on social media with a misleading claim.
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
Introduction
Google’s search engine is widely known for its ability to tailor its search results based on user activity, enhancing the relevance of search outcomes. Recently, Google introduced the ‘Try Without Personalisation’ feature. This feature allows users to view results independent of their prior activity. This change marks a significant shift in platform experiences, offering users more control over their search experience while addressing privacy concerns.
However, even in this non-personalised mode, certain contextual factors including location, language, and device type, continue to influence results. This essentially provides the search with a baseline level of relevance. This feature carries significant policy implications, particularly in the areas of privacy, consumer rights, and market competition.
Understanding the Feature
When users engage with this option of non-personalised search, it will no longer show them helpful individual results that are personalisation-dependent and will instead provide unbiased search results. Essentially,this feature provides users with neutral (non-personalised) search results by bypassing their data.
This feature allows the following changes:
- Disables the user’s ability to find past searches in Autofill/Autocomplete.
- Does not pause or delete stored activity within a user’s Google account. Users, because of this feature, will be able to pause or delete stored activity through data and privacy controls.
- The feature doesn't delete or disable app/website preferences like language or search settings are some of the unaffected preferences.
- It also does not disable or delete the material that users save.
- When a user is signed in, they can ‘turn off the personalisation’ by clicking on the search option at the end of the webpage. These changes, offered by the feature, in functionality, have significant implications for privacy, competition, and user trust.
Policy Implications: An Analysis
This feature aligns with global privacy frameworks such as the GDPR in the EU and the DPDP Act in India. By adhering to principles like data minimisation and user consent, it offers users control over their data and the choice to enable or disable personalisation, thereby enhancing user autonomy and trust.
However, there is a trade-off between user expectations for relevance and the impartiality of non-personalised results. Additionally, the introduction of such features may align with emerging regulations on data usage, transparency, and consent. Policymakers play a crucial role in encouraging innovations like these while ensuring they safeguard user rights and maintain a competitive market.
Conclusion and Future Outlook
Google's 'Try Without Personalisation' feature represents a pivotal moment for innovation by balancing user privacy with search functionality. By aligning with global privacy frameworks such as the GDPR and the DPDP Act, it empowers users to control their data while navigating the complex interplay between relevance and neutrality. However, its success hinges on overcoming technical hurdles, fostering user understanding, and addressing competitive and regulatory scrutiny. As digital platforms increasingly prioritise transparency, such features could redefine user expectations and regulatory standards in the evolving tech ecosystem.
