#FactCheck- AI-Generated Deepfake Falsely Shows Lt Gen Devendra Sharma Speaking About Missing Aviators in Operation Sindoor

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The case highlights a glaring gap in India’s copyright regime: it is outdated.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

Disclaimer:

‍

This report is the collaborative outcome of insights derived from the CyberPeace Helpline’s operational statistics and the CyberPeace Research Team, covering the monthly helpline case trends of May 2025, the report identifies recurring trends, operational challenges, and strategic opportunities. The objective is to foster research-driven solutions that enhance the overall efficacy of the helpline. 

‍

Executive Summary:

‍

This report summarizes the cybercrime cases reported in May, offering insights into case types, gender distribution, resolution status, and geographic trends.

As per our analysis, out of various Cyber Frauds Financial Fraud was the most reported issue, making up 43% of cases, followed by Cyberbullying (26%) and Impersonation (14%). Less frequent but serious issues included Sexual Harassment, Sextortion, Hacking, Data Tampering, and Cyber Defamation, each accounting for 3–6%, highlighting a mix of financial and behavioral threats.The gender distribution was fairly balanced, with 51% male and 49% female respondents. While both genders were affected by major crimes like financial fraud and cyber bullying, some categories—such as sexual harassment—reflected more gender-specific risks, indicating the need for gender-responsive policies and support.

Regarding case status, 60% remain under follow-up while 40% have been resolved, reflecting strong case-handling efforts by the team.

The location-wise data shows higher case concentrations in Uttar Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, and West Bengal, with significant reports also from Delhi, Telangana, Maharashtra, and Odisha. Reports from the northeastern and eastern states confirm the nationwide spread of cyber incidents.In conclusion, the findings point to a growing need for enhanced cybersecurity awareness, preventive strategies, and robust digital safeguards to address the evolving cyber threat landscape across India.

‍

Cases Received in May:

‍

As per the given dataset, the following types of cases were reported to our team during the month of May:

‍

• 💰 Financial Fraud – 43%
• 💬 Cyber Bullying – 26%
• 🕵️‍♂️ Impersonation – 14%
• 🚫 Sexual Harassment – 6%
• 📸 Sextortion – 3%
• 💻 Hacking – 3%
• 📝 Data Tampering – 3%
• 🗣️ Cyber Defamation – 3%

‍

‍

‍

The chart illustrates various cybercrime categories and their occurrence rates. Financial Fraud emerges as the most common, accounting for 43% of cases, highlighting the critical need for stronger digital financial security. This is followed by Cyber Bullying at 26%, reflecting growing concerns around online harassment, especially among youth. Impersonation ranks third with 14%, involving identity misuse for deceitful purposes. Less frequent but still serious crimes such as Sexual Harassment (6%), Sextortion, Hacking, Data Tampering, and Cyber Defamation (each 3%) also pose significant risks to users’ privacy and safety. Overall, the data underscores the need for improved cybersecurity awareness, legal safeguards, and preventive measures to address both financial and behavioral threats in the digital space.

‍

Gender-Wise Distribution:

‍

• 👨 Male – 51%
• 👩 Female – 49%

‍

‍

‍

The chart illustrates the distribution of respondents by gender. The data shows that Male participants make up 51% of the total, while Female participants account for 49%. This indicates a fairly balanced representation of both genders, with a slight majority of male respondents.

‍

Gender-Wise Case Distribution:

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

1. The chart presents a gender-wise distribution of various cybercrime cases, offering a comparative view of how different types of cyber incidents affect males and females.
2. It highlights that both genders are significantly impacted by cybercrimes such as financial fraud and cyber bullying, indicating a widespread risk across the board.
3. Certain categories, including sexual harassment, cyber defamation, and hacking, show more gender-specific patterns of victimization, pointing to differing vulnerabilities.
4. The data suggests the need for gender-sensitive policies and preventive measures to effectively address the unique risks faced by males and females in the digital space.
5. These insights can inform the design of tailored awareness programs, support services, and intervention strategies aimed at improving cybersecurity for all individuals.

‍

‍Major Location Wise Distribution:

‍

The map visualization displays location-wise distribution of reported cases across India. The cases reflect the cyber-related incidents or cases mapped geographically.

‍

‍

The map highlights the regional distribution of cybercrime cases across Indian states, with a higher concentration in Uttar Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, and West Bengal. States like Delhi, Telangana, Maharashtra, and Odisha also show notable activity, indicating widespread cyber threats. Regions including Assam, Tripura, Bihar, Jharkhand, and Jammu & Kashmir further reflect the pan-India spread of such incidents. This distribution stresses the need for targeted cybersecurity awareness and stronger digital safeguards nationwide

‍

CyberPeace Advisory:

‍

• Use Strong and Unique Passwords: Create complex passwords using a mix of letters, numbers, and symbols. Avoid reusing the same password across multiple platforms.
  
• Enable Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA): Add an extra layer of security by using a second verification step like an OTP or authentication app.
  
• Keep Software Updated: Regularly update your operating system, apps, and security tools to protect against known vulnerabilities.
  
• Install Trusted Security Software: Use reliable antivirus and anti-malware programs to detect and block threats.
  
• Limit Information Sharing: Be cautious about sharing personal or sensitive details, especially on social media or public platforms.
  
• Secure Your Network: Protect your Wi-Fi with a strong password and encryption. Avoid accessing confidential information on public networks.
  
• Back Up Important Data: Regularly save copies of important files in secure storage to prevent data loss in case of an attack.
  
• Stay Informed with Cybersecurity Training: Learn how to identify scams, phishing attempts, and other online threats through regular awareness sessions.
  
• Control Access to Data: Give access to sensitive information only to those who need it, based on their job roles.
• ‍Monitor and Respond to Threats: Continuously monitor systems for unusual activity and have a clear response plan for handling security incidents.

‍

• CyberPeace Helpline mail ID:  helpline@cyberpeace.net
• CyberPeace Helpline Number:  9570000066
• Central Government Helpline: https://cybercrime.gov.in/
• Central Government Helpline Number: 1930

‍

Conclusion

The cybercrime cases reported in May highlight a diverse and evolving threat landscape across India. Financial fraud, cyber bullying, and impersonation are the most prevalent, affecting both genders almost equally, though some crimes like sexual harassment call for targeted gender-sensitive measures. With 60% of cases still under follow-up, the team’s efforts in investigation and resolution remain strong. Geographically, cyber incidents are widespread, with higher concentrations in several key states, demonstrating that no region is immune. These findings underscore the urgent need to enhance cybersecurity awareness, strengthen preventive strategies, and build robust digital safeguards. Proactive and inclusive approaches are essential to protect individuals and communities and to address the growing challenges posed by cybercrime nationwide.

‍

Pretext

On 20th October 2022, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,337.76 crores on Google for abusing its dominant position in multiple markets in the Android Mobile device ecosystem, apart from issuing cease and desist orders. The CCI also directed Google to modify its conduct within a defined timeline.  Smart mobile devices need an operating system (OS) to run applications (apps) and programs. Android is one such mobile operating system that Google acquired in 2005. In the instant matter, the CCI examined various practices of Google w.r.t. licensing of this Android mobile operating system and various proprietary mobile applications of Google (e.g., Play Store, Google Search, Google Chrome, YouTube, etc.).

The Issue

Google was found to be misusing its dominant position in the tech market, and the same was the reason behind the penalty. Google argued about the competitive constraints being faced from Apple. In relation to understanding the extent of competition between Google’s Android ecosystem and Apple’s iOS ecosystem, the CCI noted the differences in the two business models, which affect the underlying incentives of business decisions. Apple’s business is primarily based on a vertically integrated smart device ecosystem that focuses on the sale of high-end smart devices with state-of-the-art software components. In contrast, Google’s business was found to be driven by the ultimate intent of increasing users on its platforms so that they interact with its revenue-earning service, i.e., online searches, which directly affects the sale of online advertising services by Google. It was seen that google had created a dominant position among the android phone manufacturers as they were made to have a set of google apps preinstalled in the device to increase the user’s dependency on google services. The CCI felt that Google had created a dominant position to which they replied that the same operations are done by Apple as well, to which the commission responded that apple is a phone and app manufacturer and they have Apple-owned apps in Apple devices only, but Google here in had made a pseudo mandate for android manufactures to have the google apps pre-installed which is, in turn, a possible way of disrupting the market equilibrium and violative of market practices. The CCI imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,337.76 for abusing its dominant position in multiple markets in India, CCI delineated the following five relevant markets in the present matter –

• The market for licensable OS for smart mobile devices in India
• The market for app store for Android smart mobile OS in India
• The market for general web search services in India
• The market for non-OS specific mobile web browsers in India
• The market for online video hosting platforms (OVHP) in India.

Supreme Courts Opinion

In October 2022, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) ruled that Google, owned by Alphabet Inc, exploited its dominant position in Android and told it to remove restrictions on device makers, including those related to the pre-installation of apps and ensuring exclusivity of its search. Google lost a challenge in the Supreme Court to block the directives, as the learned court refused to put a stay on the imposed penalty, further giving seven days to comply. The Supreme Court has said a lower tribunal—where Google first challenged the Android directives—can continue to hear the company’s appeal and must rule by March 31.

Counterpoint Research estimates that about 97% of 600 million smartphones in India run on Android. Apple has just a 3% share. Hoping to block the implementation of the CCI directives, Google challenged the CCI order in the Supreme Court by warning it could stall the growth of the Android ecosystem. It also said it would be forced to alter arrangements with more than 1,100 device manufacturers and thousands of app developers if the directives kick in. Google has been concerned about India’s decision as the steps are seen as more sweeping than those imposed in the European Commission’s 2018 ruling. There it was fined for putting in place what the Commission called unlawful restrictions on Android mobile device makers. Google is still challenging the record $4.3 billion fine in that case. In Europe, Google made changes later, including letting Android device users pick their default search engine, and said device makers would be able to license the Google mobile application suite separately from the Google Search App or the Chrome browser.

‍

Conclusion

As the world goes deeper into cyberspace, the big tech companies have more control over the industry and the markets, but the same should not turn into anarchy in the global markets. The Tech giants need to be made aware that compliance is the utmost duty for all companies, and enforcement of the law of the land will be maintained no matter what. Earlier India lacked policies and legislation to govern cyberspace, but in the recent proactive stance by the govt, a lot of new bills have been tabled, one of them being the Intermediary Rules 2021, which has laid down the obligations nand duties of the companies by setting up an intermediary in the country. Such bills coupled with such crucial judgments on tech giants will act as a test and barrier for other tech companies who try to flaunt the rules and avoid compliance.