#FactCheck - "Deepfake Video Falsely Claims Justin Trudeau Endorses Investment Project”

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. 

1. The generated information must be prominently labelled or embedded with a permanent, unique metadata or identifier. The label or metadata must be:

1. Visibly displayed or made audible in a prominent manner on or within that synthetically generated information.
2. 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.
3. 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. 

2. 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

‍

1. 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. 

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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 

‍

1. Amendments To The Information Technology Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code Rules 2021 It Rules 2021 | Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology

2. https://www.statista.com/outlook/tmo/artificial-intelligence/generative-ai/worldwide 

‍

Executive Summary:

Amid the ongoing conflict between the United States, Israel, and Iran, a video circulating widely on social media claims to show American soldiers kneeling and surrendering to Iranian forces. In the clip, several soldiers appear to be sitting on their knees in front of armed personnel, creating the impression that they have been captured on the battlefield.

The video is being shared with the claim that the Iranian military has taken US soldiers prisoner during the war.

However, an research by the CyberPeace found that the claim is false. The viral clip is not authentic and has been generated using artificial intelligence. There is no credible evidence to support the claim that American soldiers have been captured by Iranian forces.

‍

Claim

‍

A Facebook user named “News Tick” shared the video on March 12, 2026, claiming that Iran had released footage of captured US soldiers. In the clip, the soldiers can be seen kneeling while armed personnel stand around them, giving the scene a highly dramatic appearance.

• https://www.facebook.com/reel/1619184822538210 

‍

‍

Fact Check

‍

To verify the claim, we first searched the internet using relevant keywords. We found no credible reports from reputable news organizations confirming that US soldiers had been captured by Iran during the conflict. A closer examination of the video revealed several visual inconsistencies. The weapons carried by the soldiers appear unclear and oddly shaped. Additionally, the background looks unusually blurred and overly dramatic. The lighting and textures in the footage also appear artificial—common indicators of AI-generated visuals.

To confirm this suspicion, we analyzed the clip using multiple AI detection tools. The tool Hive Moderation indicated a 99% probability that the video was created using artificial intelligence.

‍

‍

‍

Further analysis using Sightengine also suggested that the video was likely AI-generated, estimating an 80% probability of AI creation.

‍

‍

Conclusion

‍

Our research shows that the viral video claiming to depict American soldiers surrendering and being captured by Iranian forces is fake. The footage has been generated using AI and does not represent a real incident.

‍

Introduction

Intricate and winding are the passageways of the modern digital age, a place where the reverberations of truth effortlessly blend, yet hauntingly contrast, with the echoes of falsehood. The latest thread in this fabric of misinformation is a claim that has scurried through the virtual windows of social media platforms, gaining the kind of traction that is both revelatory and alarming of our times. It is a narrative that speaks to the heart of India's cultural and religious fabric—the construction of the Ram Temple in Ayodhya, a project enshrined in the collective consciousness of a nation and steeped in historical significance.

The claim in question, a spectre of misinformation, suggests that the Ram Temple's construction has been covertly shifted 3 kilometres from its original, hallowed ground—the birthplace, as it were, of Lord Ram. This assertion, which spread through the echo chambers of social media, has been bolstered by a screenshot of Google Maps, a digital cartographer that has accidentally become a pawn in this game of truth and deception. The image purports to showcase the location of Ram Mandir as distinct and distant from the site where the Babri Masjid once stood, a claim went viral on social media and has caught the public's reactions.

The Viral Tempest 

In the face of such a viral tempest, IndiaTV's fact-checking arm, IndiaTVFactCheck, has stepped into the fray, wielding the sword of veracity against the Goliath of falsehood. Their investigation into this viral claim was meticulous, a deep dive into the digital representations that have fueled this controversy. Upon examining the viral Google Maps screenshot, they noticed markings at two locations: one labelled as Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Temple and the other as Babri Masjid. The latter, upon closer inspection and with the aid of Google's satellite prowess, was revealed to be the Shri Sita-Ram Birla Temple, a place of worship that stands in quiet dignity, far removed from the contentious whispers of social media.

The truth, as it often does, lay buried beneath layers of user-generated content on Google Maps, where the ability to tag any location with a name has sometimes led to the dissemination of incorrect information. This can be corrected, of course, but not before it has woven itself into the fabric of public discourse. The fact-check by IndiaTV revealed that the location mentioned in the viral screenshot is, indeed, the Shri Sita-Ram Birla Temple and the Ram Temple is being constructed at its original, intended site.

This revelation is not merely a victory for truth over falsehood but also a testament to the resilience of facts in the face of a relentless onslaught of misinformation. It is a reminder that the digital realm, for all its wonders, is also a shadowy theatre where narratives are constructed and deconstructed with alarming ease. The very basis of all the fake narratives that spread around significant events, such as the consecration ceremony of the Ram Temple, is the manipulation of truth, the distortion of reality to serve nefarious ends of spreading misinformation.

Fake Narratives; Misinformation

Consider the elaborate fake narratives spun around the ceremony, where hours have been spent on the internet building a web of deceit. Claims such as 'Mandir wahan nahin banaya gaya' (The temple is not being built at the site of the demolition) and the issuance of new Rs 500 notes for the Ram Mandir were some pieces of misinformation that went viral on social media amid the preparations for the consecration ceremony. These repetitive claims, albeit differently worded, were spread to further a single narrative on the internet, a phenomenon that a study published in Nature said could be attributed to people taking some peripheral cues as signals for truth, which can increase with repetition.

The misinformation incidents surrounding the Ram Temple in Ayodhya are a microcosm of the larger battle between truth and misinformation. The false claims circulating online assert that the ongoing construction is not taking place at the original Babri Masjid site but rather 3 kilometres away. This misinformation, shared widely on social media has been debunked upon closer examination. The claim is based on a screenshot of Google Maps showing two locations: the construction site of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Temple and another spot labeled 'Babar Masjid permanently closed' situated 3 kilometers away. The assertion questions the legitimacy of demolishing the Babri Masjid if the temple is being built elsewhere. However, a thorough fact-check reveals the claim to be entirely unfounded.

Deep Scrutiny

Upon scrutiny, the screenshot indicates that the second location marked as 'Babar Masjid' is, in fact, the Sita-Ram Birla Temple in Ayodhya. This is verified by comparing the Google Maps satellite image with the actual structure of the Birla Temple. Notably, the viral screenshot misspells 'Babri Masjid' as 'Babar Masjid,' casting doubt on its credibility. Satellite images from Google Earth Pro clearly depict the construction of a temple-like structure at the precise coordinates of the original Babri Masjid demolition site (26°47'43.74'N 82°11'38.77'E). Comparing old and new satellite images further confirms that major construction activities began in 2011, aligning with the initiation of the Ram Temple construction.

Moreover, existing photographs of the Babri Masjid, though challenging to precisely match, share essential structural elements with the current construction site, reinforcing the location as the original site of the mosque. Hence the viral claim that the Ram Temple is being constructed 3 kilometers away from the Babri Masjid site is indubitably false. Evidence from historical photographs, satellite images and google images conclusively refute this misinformation, attesting that the temple construction is indeed taking place at the same location as the original Babri Masjid.

Viral Misinformation: A false claim based on a misleading Google Maps screenshot suggests the Ram Temple construction in Ayodhya has been covertly shifted 3 kilometres away from its original Babri Masjid site.

Fact Check Revealed: IndiaTVFactCheck debunked the misinformation, confirming that the viral screenshot actually showed the Shri Sita-Ram Birla Temple, not the Babri Masjid site. The Ram Temple is indeed being constructed at its original, intended location, exposing the falsehood of the claim.

Conclusion 

The case of the Ram Temple is a pitiful reminder of the power of misinformation and the significance of fact-checking in preserving the integrity of truth. It is a clarion call to question, to uphold the integrity of facts in a world increasingly stymied in the murky waters of falsehoods. Widespread misinformation highlights the critical role of fact-checking in dispelling false narratives. It serves as a reminder of the ongoing battle between truth and misinformation in the digital age, emphasising the importance of upholding the integrity of facts for a more informed society. 

References 

• https://www.indiatvnews.com/fact-check/fact-check-is-ram-temple-being-built-3-km-away-from-the-birthplace-here-truth-behind-viral-claim-2024-01-19-912633
• https://www.thequint.com/news/webqoof/misinformation-spread-around-events-ayodhya-ram-mandir-g20-elections-bharat-jodo-yatra

‍