#FactCheck- AI-Generated Image Falsely Shows SRH Team Seeking Blessings

Introduction

According to Statista, the global artificial intelligence software market is forecast to grow by around 126 billion US dollars by 2025. This will include a 270% increase in enterprise adoption over the past four years. The top three verticals in the Al market are BFSI (Banking, Financial Services, and Insurance), Healthcare & Life Sciences, and Retail & e-commerce. These sectors benefit from vast data generation and the critical need for advanced analytics. Al is used for fraud detection, customer service, and risk management in BFSI; diagnostics and personalised treatment plans in healthcare; and retail marketing and inventory management.

The Chairperson of the Competition Commission of India’s Chief, Smt. Ravneet Kaur raised a concern that Artificial Intelligence has the potential to aid cartelisation by automating collusive behaviour through predictive algorithms. She explained that the mere use of algorithms cannot be anti-competitive but in case the algorithms are manipulated, then that is a valid concern about competition in markets.

This blog focuses on how policymakers can balance fostering innovation and ensuring fair competition in an AI-driven economy. 

What is the Risk Created by AI-driven Collusion?

AI uses predictive algorithms, and therefore, they could lead to aiding cartelisation by automating collusive behaviour. AI-driven collusion could be through:

• The use of predictive analytics to coordinate pricing strategies among competitors.
• The lack of human oversight in algorithm-induced decision-making leads to tacit collusion (competitors coordinate their actions without explicitly communicating or agreeing to do so).

AI has been raising antitrust concerns and the most recent example is the partnership between Microsoft and OpenAI, which has raised concerns among other national competition authorities regarding potential competition law issues. While it is expected that the partnership will potentially accelerate innovation, it also raises concerns about potential anticompetitive effects such as market foreclosure or the creation of barriers to entry for competitors and, therefore, has been under consideration in the German and UK courts. The problem here is in detecting and proving whether collusion is taking place. 

The Role of Policy and Regulation

The uncertainties induced by AI regarding its effects on competition create the need for algorithmic transparency and accountability in mitigating the risks of AI-driven collusion. It leads to the need to build and create regulatory frameworks that mandate the disclosure of algorithmic methodologies and establish a set of clear guidelines for the development of AI and its deployment. These frameworks or guidelines should encourage an environment of collaboration between competition watchdogs and AI experts. 

The global best practices and emerging trends in AI regulation already include respect for human rights, sustainability, transparency and strong risk management. The EU AI Act could serve as a model for other jurisdictions, as it outlines measures to ensure accountability and mitigate risks. The key goal is to tailor AI regulations to address perceived risks while incorporating core values such as privacy, non-discrimination, transparency, and security.

Promoting Innovation Without Stifling Competition

Policymakers need to ensure that they balance regulatory measures with innovation scope and that the two priorities do not hinder each other. 

1. Create adaptive and forward-thinking regulatory approaches to keep pace with technological advancements that take place at the pace of development and allow for quick adjustments in response to new AI capabilities and market behaviours.n
2. Competition watchdogs need to recruit domain experts to assess competition amid rapid changes in the technology landscape. Create a multi-stakeholder approach that involves regulators, industry leaders, technologists and academia who can create inclusive and ethical AI policies. 
3. Businesses can be provided incentives such as recognition through certifications, grants or benefits in acknowledgement of adopting ethical AI practices. 
4. Launch studies such as the CCI’s market study to study the impact of AI on competition. This can lead to the creation of a driving force for sustainable growth with technological advancements. 

Conclusion: AI and the Future of Competition

We must promote a multi-stakeholder approach that enhances regulatory oversight, and incentivising ethical AI practices. This is needed to strike a delicate balance that safeguards competition and drives sustainable growth. As AI continues to redefine industries, embracing collaborative, inclusive, and forward-thinking policies will be critical to building an equitable and innovative digital future. 

The lawmakers and policymakers engaged in the drafting of the frameworks need to ensure that they are adaptive to change and foster innovation. It is necessary to note that fair competition and innovation are not mutually exclusive goals, they are complementary to each other. Therefore, a regulatory framework that promotes transparency, accountability, and fairness in AI deployment must be established.

References

• https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/ai-has-potential-to-aid-cartelisation-fair-competition-integral-for-sustainable-growth-cci-chief/article69041922.ece 
• https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/artificial-intelligence-market-74851580.html 
• https://www.ey.com/en_in/insights/ai/how-to-navigate-global-trends-in-artificial-intelligence-regulation#:~:text=Six%20regulatory%20trends%20in%20Artificial%20Intelligence&text=These%20include%20respect%20for%20human,based%20approach%20to%20AI%20regulation. ‍
• https://www.business-standard.com/industry/news/ai-has-potential-to-aid-fair-competition-for-sustainable-growth-cci-chief-124122900221_1.html

Executive Summary

‍

‍

After reports identifying Cole Thomas Allen as the accused in the shooting incident at the White House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA) dinner, several Pakistani propaganda-linked social media accounts began circulating a new claim alleging that the suspect’s wife is an Indian woman named Priyanka Rao. Users shared a photo purportedly showing Cole Thomas Allen with Priyanka Rao, along with an alleged Indian passport in her name. One user posted the image with the caption: “31-year-old Cole Thomas Allen with his Indian wife Priyanka Rao. Why do they always have three names?”

However, research by the CyberPeace Research Wing found the claim to be fake. The viral passport and accompanying image appear to be AI-generated.

‍

Claim:

‍

Social media users claimed that Cole Thomas Allen, accused in the WHCA dinner shooting, is married to an Indian woman named Priyanka Rao.

• https://archive.ph/p8o6z 
• https://x.com/bruce_barrett/status/2048509867376140335?s=20

‍

‍

‍

Fact Check:

‍

During the research, multiple inconsistencies were found in the viral passport image, strongly indicating it is fabricated. A close review of the document revealed several obvious errors commonly seen in AI-generated content. For instance, in the “Nationality” field, the name “Cole Thomas Allen” was written instead of a country name. Such a basic mistake would not appear in any genuine government-issued passport.

‍

The Hindi text on the document was also highly inaccurate and unnatural. Examples included:

• “राष्ट्रीयता” misspelled as “राष्ट्रीयाय”
• “जन्मतिथि” replaced with meaningless text
• “जन्म स्थान” incorrectly written
• “Issue” mistranslated as unrelated wording
• “Date of Expiry” left untranslated in Hindi format

‍

‍

Further analysis using an AI detection tool indicated that the viral passport image had a 69 percent probability of being AI-generated.

Conclusion:

‍

The claim that WHCA dinner shooting accused Cole Thomas Allen has an Indian wife named Priyanka Rao is fake. The viral passport and image being shared online are likely AI-generated and part of a misinformation campaign.

‍

Introduction

‍

The courts in India have repeatedly emphasised the importance of “enhanced customer protection” and “limited liability” on their part. The rationale behind such imperatives is to extend security against exploitation by institutions that are equipped with all the means to manipulate customers. India, with its looming financial literacy gaps that have to be addressed, needs to curb any manipulation on the part of banking institutions. Various studies have highlighted this gap in recent times; for example, according to the National Centre for Financial Education, only 27% of Indian people are financially literate, which is much less than the 42% global average. With only 19% of millennials exhibiting sufficient financial awareness yet expressing high trust in their financial skills, the issue is very worrisome. Thus, the increasing number of financial frauds intensifies the issue. 

Zero Liability in Cyber Frauds: Regulatory Safeguards for Digital Banking Customers

‍

In light of the growing emphasis on financial inclusion and consumer protection, and in response to the recent rise in complaints regarding unauthorised debits from customer accounts and cards, the framework for assessing customer liability in such cases has been re-evaluated. The RBI’s circular dated July 6, 2017 titled “Customer Protection-Limited Liability of Customers in Unauthorised Electronic Banking Transactions”  serves as the foundation for regulatory protections for Indian customers of digital banking. A clear and organised framework for determining customer accountability is outlined in the circular, which acknowledges the exponential increase in electronic transactions and related scams. It assigns proportional obligations for unauthorised transactions resulting from system-level breaches, client carelessness, and bank contributory negligence. Most importantly it establishes the zero responsibility concept, which protects clients from monetary losses in cases when the bank or another system component is at fault and the client promptly reports the breach. 

This directive’s sophisticated approach to consumer protection is what makes it unique. It requires banks to set up strong fraud prevention systems, proactive alerting systems, and round-the-clock reporting systems. Furthermore, it significantly alters the power dynamics between financial institutions and customers by placing the onus of demonstrating customer negligence completely on the bank. The circular emphasises prompt reversal of funds to impacted customers and requires banks to implement Board-approved policies on liability to redress. As a result, it is a consumer rights charter rather than just a compliance document, promoting confidence and financial accountability in India’s digital banking sector. 

Judicial Endorsement in Reinforcing the Zero Liability Principle

‍

 In the case of Suresh Chandra Negi & Anr. v. Bank of Baroda & Ors. (Writ (C) No. 24192 of 2022) The Allahabad High Court reaffirmed that the burden of proving consumer accountability rests firmly on the banking institution, hence reaffirming the zero liability concept in circumstances of unapproved electronic banking transactions. The Division bench emphasised the regulatory requirement that banks provide adequate proof before assigning blame to customers, citing Clause 12 of the RBI’s circular dated June 6, 2017, Customer Protection—Limited Liability of Customers in Unauthorised Electronic Banking Transactions. In a similar scenario, the Bombay HC held that a customer is entitled to zero liability when an authorized transaction occurs due to a third-party breach, where the deficiency lies neither with the bank nor the customer, provided the fraud is promptly reported. 

The zero liability principle, as envisaged under Clause 8 of the RBI circular, has emerged as a cornerstone of consumer protection in India’s digital banking ecosystem.  

Another landmark judgment that has given this principle the front stage in addressing banking frauds is Hare Ram Singh vs RBI &Ors. (W.P. (C) 13497/2022) laid down by Delhi HC which is an important legal turning point in the development of the zero liability principle under the RBI’s 2017 framework. The court reiterated the need to evaluate customer diligence in light of new fraud tactics like phishing and vishing by holding the State Bank of India (SBI) liable for a cyber fraud incident even though the transactions were authenticated by OTP. The ruling made it clear that when complex social engineering or technical manipulation is used, banks are nonetheless accountable even if they only rely on OTP validation. The legal protection provided to victims of unauthorised electronic banking transactions is strengthened by the court’s emphasis on the bank having the burden of evidence in accordance with RBI standards. 

Importantly, this ruling lays the full burden of securing digital banking systems on financial organisations and supports the judiciary’s increasing acknowledgement of the digital asymmetry between banks and consumers. It emphasises that prompt consumer reporting, banks’ failure to disclose important credentials, and their own operational errors must all be taken into consideration when determining culpability. As a result, this decision establishes a strong precedent that will increase consumer confidence, promote systemic advancements in digital risk management, and better integrate the zero liability standard into Indian digital banking law. In a time when cyber vulnerabilities are growing, it acts as a beacon for financial accountability. 

Conclusion

‍

The Zero Liability Principle serves as a vital safety net for customers navigating an increasingly intricate and precarious financial environment in a time when digital transactions are the foundation of contemporary banking. In addition to codifying strong safeguards against unauthorized electronic transactions, the RBI’s 2017 framework rebalanced  the fiduciary relationship by putting financial institutions squarely in charge. Through significant rulings, the courts have upheld this protective culture and emphasised that banks, not the victims of cybercrime, bear the burden of proof. 

It would be crucial to execute these principles consistently, review them frequently, and raise public awareness as India transitions to a more digital economy. In order to ensure that consumers are not only protected but also empowered must become more than just a policy on paper. 

‍

References

• https://www.business-standard.com/content/specials/making-money-vs-managing-money-india-s-critical-financial-literacy-gap-125021900786_1.html 
• https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/allahabad-high-court/allahabad-high-court-ruling-bank-liability-unauthorized-electronic-transaction-and-customer-fault-297962 
• https://www.mondaq.com/india/white-collar-crime-anti-corruption-fraud/1635616/cyber-law-series-2-issue-10-the-zero-liability-principle-in-cyber-fraud-hare-ram-singh-v-reserve-bank-of-india-ors-case 

‍