#FactCheck -AI-Generated Video Falsely Shows Cristiano Ronaldo Chanting “Free Palestine

Executive Summary:

In the age of virtuality, misinformation and misleading techniques shape the macula of the internet, and these threaten human safety and well-being. Recently, an alarming fake information has surfaced, intended to provide a fake Government subsidy scheme with the name of Indian Post. This serves criminals, who attack people's weaknesses, laying them off with proposals of receiving help in exchange for info. In this informative blog, we take a deep dive into one of the common schemes of fraud during this time. We will go through the stages involved which illustrates how one is deceived and offer practical tips to avoid the fall.

Introduction:

Digital communication reaches individuals faster, and as a result, misinformation and mails have accelerated their spread globally. People, therefore, are susceptible to online scams as they add credibility to phenomena. In India, the recently increased fake news draws its target with the deceptive claims of being a subsidy from the Government mainly through the Indian post. These fraudulent schemes frequently are spread via social networks and messaging platforms, influence trust of the individual’s in respectable establishments to establish fraud and collect private data. 

Understanding the Claim:

There is a claim circulating on the behalf of the Government at the national level of a great subsidy of $1066 for deserving residents. The individual will be benefited with the subsidy when they complete the questionnaire they have received through social media. The questionnaire may have been designed to steal the individual’s confidential information by way of taking advantage of naivety and carelessness.

The Deceptive Journey Unveiled:

Bogus Offer Presentation: The scheme often appeals to people, by providing a misleading message or a commercial purposely targeted at convincing them to act immediately by instilling the sense of an urgent need. Such messages usually combine the mood of persuasion and highly evaluative material to create an illusion of being authentic.

Questionnaire Requirement: After the visitors land on attractive content material they are directed to fill in the questionnaire which is supposedly required for processing the economic assistance. This questionnaire requests for non private information in their nature.

False Sense of Urgency: Simultaneously, in addition to the stress-causing factor of it being a fake news, even the false deadline may be brought out to push in the technique of compliance. This data collection is intended to put people under pressure and influence them to make the information transfer that immediate without thorough examination.

Data Harvesting Tactics: Despite the financial help actually serving, you might be unaware but lies beneath it is a vile motive, data harvesting. The collection of facts through questionnaires may become something priceless for scammers that they can use for a good while to profit from identity theft, financial crimes and other malicious means.

Analysis Highlights:

• It is important to note that at this particular point, there has not been any official declaration or a proper confirmation of an offer made by the India Post or from the Government. So, people must be very careful when encountering such messages because they are often employed as lures in phishing attacks or misinformation campaigns. Before engaging or transmitting such claims, it is always advisable to authenticate the information from trustworthy sources in order to protect oneself online and prevent the spread of wrongful information
• The campaign is hosted on a third party domain instead of any official Government Website, this raised suspicion. Also the domain has been registered in very recent times.

• Domain Name: ccn-web[.]buzz
• Registry Domain ID: D6073D14AF8D9418BBB6ADE18009D6866-GDREG
• Registrar WHOIS Server: whois[.]namesilo[.]com
• Registrar URL: www[.]namesilo[.]com
• Updated Date: 2024-02-27T06:17:21Z
• Creation Date: 2024-02-11T03:23:08Z
• Registry Expiry Date: 2025-02-11T03:23:08Z
• Registrar: NameSilo, LLC
• Name Server: tegan[.]ns[.]cloudflare[.]com
• Name Server: nikon[.]ns[.]cloudflare[.]com

Note: Cybercriminal used Cloudflare technology to mask the actual IP address of the fraudulent website. 

CyberPeace Advisory:

Verification and Vigilance: It makes complete sense in this case that you should be cautious and skeptical. Do not fall prey to this criminal act. Examine the arguments made and the facts provided by either party and consult credible sources before disclosures are made.

Official Channels: Governments usually invoke the use of reliable channels which can as well be by disseminating subsidies and assistance programs through official websites and the legal channels. Take caution for schemes that are not following the protocols previously established.

Educational Awareness: Providing awareness through education and consciousness about on-line scams and the approaches which are fraudulent has to be considered a primary requirement. Through empowering individuals with capabilities and targets we, as a collective, can be armed with information that will prevent erroneous scheme spreading.

Reporting and Action: In a case of mission suspicious and fraudulent images, let them understand immediately by making the authorities and necessary organizations alert. Your swift actions do not only protect yourself but also help others avoid the costs of related security compromises.

Conclusion:

The rise of the ‘Indian Post Countrywide - government subsidy fake news’ poses a stern warning of the present time that the dangers within the virtual ecosystem are. The art of being wise and sharp in terms of scams always reminds us to show a quick reaction to the hacks and try to do the things that we should identify as per the CyberPeace advisories; thereby, we will contribute to a safer Cyberspace for everyone. Likewise, the ability to critically judge, and remain alert, is important to help defeat the variety of tricks offenders use to mislead you online.

‍

Introduction

The global food industry is vast and complex, influencing consumer behaviour, policy, and health outcomes worldwide. However, misinformation within this sector is pervasive, with significant consequences for public health and market dynamics. Misinformation can arise from various sources, including misleading marketing campaigns, unsubstantiated health claims, and misrepresentation of food production practices through public endorsement or otherwise. Nutrition misinformation is one such example. The promotion of false or unproven products for profit can lead to mislead consumers and affect their interests. Misleading claims and inaccurate information about the nutritional value of food products and processes are common claims. The misinformation created about food on the global stage distorts public understanding of nutrition, food safety, and environmental impacts, leading to significant consequences for public health, consumer trust, and the economy.

Rise of Nutritional Misinformation and Consumer Distrust

Health and nutrition-related misinformation is one of the most prevalent types in the food sector. Businesses frequently advertise their products as "natural" or "healthy" without providing sufficient data to back up these claims, tricking customers into buying goods that might be heavy in fat, sugar, or salt. Words like "superfood" are frequently used without supporting evidence from science, giving the impression that they are healthier.

Misinformation also impacts the sustainability and ethics of food production. Claims of "sustainable" or "ethical" sourcing are frequently exaggerated or fabricated, leaving consumers unaware of the true environmental and social costs associated with certain products.

This lack of clarity is not only observed in general food trends but also within organisations meant to provide trustworthy information. There has been significant criticism, directed at the International Food Information Council (IFIC), for their alleged promotion of nutrition-based misinformation to safeguard the interests of large food corporations, resulting in potentially compromising public health. The preemptive claims that IFIC made about the nutritive claims have been questioned by the National Institutes of Health, USA in November 2022. They reported in their study that IFIC promotes food and beverage company interests and undermines the accurate dissemination of scientific evidence related to diet and health. This was in support of the objective of the study, which was to determine whether, there have been many claims that the nutritional value of certain foods or diets may be manipulated to favour business goals, leaving consumers misinformed about what constitutes a truly healthy diet.

Another source of misinformation is the growing ‘Free-From’ fad. The “free-from” label in the US is a food category of products that claim to be free from certain ingredients or chemicals. It has been steadily growing by 7% annually. These labels often tout products as healthier due to a simpler ingredient list. Although seemingly harmless, transparency in ingredient disclosure is often obscured in the 'free-from' trend. This can lead to consumer distrust in the long run, making them hesitant.

The Harmful Effects of Food Misinformation

The effects of misinformation about nutrition and food safety can directly affect public health.
Consumers unknowingly may accept false claims or avoid certain foods without scientific basis and adopt harmful dietary habits, potentially leading to malnutrition or other health problems. By the time the realisation sets in about being misled, their trust is eroded not only towards such companies but also towards the regulators. This distrust can lead to declining consumer confidence and disrupt market stability. 

Some food-related misinformation downplays the environmental impact that certain food production practices have. An example of such a situation is the promotion of meat alternatives as being entirely eco-friendly without considering all environmental factors. This can mislead consumers and obscure the complex environmental effects of food production systems. 

Misinformation can distort consumer purchasing habits, potentially leading to a reduced demand for certain products and unfair competition. The sufferers in this case are the small-scale producers who suffer disproportionately, while the large corporations might use this misinformation to maintain their dominance in the market. Regulatory checks, open communication, and public education campaigns are needed to combat mis/disinformation in the global food sector and enable consumers to make decisions that are sustainable, healthful and informed.

CyberPeace Recommendations

• Unfair trade practices like providing misleading information or unchecked claims on food products should be better addressed by the regulators. Companies must provide clear, transparent and accurate information about their products as mandated under the Food Safety and Standards (Advertising and Claims) Regulations, 2018. This information should include the true origins, production methods, and nutritional content on their labels.
• Promotions of initiatives and investments by public health organisations and food authorities towards educating consumers and improving food literacy should encouraged. 
• Regulating social media endorsement is also crucial to prevent the spread of misinformation and unchecked claims. Without proper due diligence on product details, influencers may unknowingly mislead their audience, causing potential harm. 
• The Social Media Platforms can partner with nutritionists, dietitians, and other health professionals who are content creators, as they can help in understanding and promoting accurate, science-based nutrition information and debunk any misleading claims.
• Campaigns should be encouraged to spread public awareness about the harms of food-related misleading claims or trends. Emphasis should be on evidence-based nutritional guidance. The ongoing research towards food safety, nutrition, and true information should be actively communicated to keep the public informed. Combating food misinformation requires more robust regulations, improved transparency, and heightened consumer awareness and vigilance.

References

• https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/label-claims-on-packaged-food-could-be-misleading-icmr/articleshow/110053363.cms 
• https://www.outlookindia.com/hub4business/empowering-change-freedom-food-alliance-takes-on-global-food-industry-misinformation 
• https://insightsnow.com/misinformation-hurting-food-business/ ‍
• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9618198/pdf/12992_2022_Article_884.pdf

Introduction
‍

The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITy) released the Draft Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Second Amendment Rules, 2026 on March 30, 2026, inviting public comments with a response window closing on April 14. This is a limited 15-day period for public input on proposed rules that will have major constitutional impacts. The brevity and timing of this opportunity demonstrate debatable commitment to stakeholder engagement and meaningful consultation by the drafting agency.

While MEITY describes the proposed amendments as "clarificatory and procedural nature," an analysis shows they will have substantive effects. Collectively, the amended language changes significantly how online speech will be regulated in India by providing the executive with more concentrated regulatory authority, limiting the required transparency of content enforcement, mandating greater retention of data without proportionality-based safeguards, and placing excessive compliance burden on intermediaries. Each of these changes has consequences beyond just changes in process and together, these changes collectively raise substantial concerns regarding compliance with Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India.

‍

The Constitutional Baseline: Shreya Singhal and the Limits of Intermediary Liability
‍

India’s Supreme Court decision in Shreya Singhal v Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1 provides the foundation for intermediary liability, wherein the Court read down Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, 2000, holding that intermediaries are required to act upon receiving actual knowledge only through a court order or a valid notification by the appropriate government authority. The Supreme Court’s decision intended to provide a constitutional protection to intermediaries from being subjected to informal, unverified executive pressure to take down content by requiring that any such order be subject to some level of legal objective credibility or threshold.

‍

Rule 3(4) of the proposed amendments places that balance under significant strain. By requiring intermediaries to comply with advisories, directions, standard operating procedures, codes of practice, and guidelines issued by the Ministry — and tying non-compliance to the loss of safe harbour — the draft effectively lowers the constitutional threshold that Shreya Singhal was designed to maintain. Compliance obligations now potentially arise from instruments that carry no judicial sanction and no mandatory public disclosure.

‍

Rule 3(4): Delegated Legislation or Executive Overreach
‍

The rule-making power conferred on the Central Government under Section 87 of the IT Act is limited to carrying out the provisions of the Act. It does not authorise the creation of new substantive obligations. This principle has been consistently affirmed in Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India (1985) 1 SCC 641 and Confederation of Ex-Servicemen Associations v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 399, where the Court held that delegated legislation must remain within the four corners of the parent statute.

Rule 3(4) tests those limits. It converts executive advisories into binding compliance instruments without a clear statutory foundation in either Section 79 or Section 87. Although the proposed rule requires that such instruments specify their legal basis, there is no requirement that they be published or made publicly accessible. This creates a framework in which legality risks becoming circular — instruments claimed to be lawful solely by reference to a provision that does not clearly authorise them, shielded from scrutiny by their own opacity. Justice Chandurkar’s judgment in Kunal Kamra v. Union of India identified precisely this defect in the Fact Check Unit amendment. Rule 3(4) replicates the structural problem in a broader form.

‍

Compliance Pressure and the Logic of Over-Censorship
‍

The practical consequence of Rule 3(4) lies not only in its legality but in how it reshapes incentive structures for platforms. An intermediary facing the permanent threat of safe harbour loss will not wait to assess the legal merit of each advisory. The rational calculation is to comply early, broadly, and without friction. Lawful content — particularly satire, political commentary, and journalism — becomes vulnerable not because it is unlawful, but because it presents regulatory risk.

This dynamic was visible on 18 March 2026, when stand-up comedian Pulkit Mani (@hunnywhoisfunny) found his satirical Instagram reel being restricted across India. The video had accumulated over 16.5 million views. Users encountered a notice citing Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act. No reasons were publicly provided. No prior hearing was offered. The same night, several political parody and satire accounts were withheld on X. 

‍

Data Retention, Privacy, and the Proportionality Test
‍

The amendments to Rules 3(1)(g) and 3(1)(h) extend data retention obligations by making them additional to requirements under any other law. The existing 180-day floor for retained user data — covering removed content, registration information, and associated records — becomes a minimum rather than a ceiling. No maximum is specified, and no proportionality requirement accompanies the extension.

‍

This raises direct concerns under Article 21 as interpreted in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1, which held that any state intrusion into privacy must satisfy the triple test of legality, necessity, and proportionality. Undefined retention periods, with no statutory ceiling and no requirement of purpose limitation, risk failing all three. The longer user data is held, including metadata, device information, and records of removed content,  the greater the exposure to surveillance, unauthorised access, and use beyond the original justification.

‍

Circumventing Judicial Scrutiny Through Procedural Redesign
‍

The Bombay High Court, in its August 2021 order, stayed provisions of the IT Rules’ oversight mechanism as prima facie violative of Article 19(1)(a). The Madras High Court in T.M. Krishna v. Union of India affirmed that stay, cautioning that government-controlled media oversight risked undermining press independence. Both matters remain pending before the Delhi High Court.

The amendments to Rules 8(1) and 14 restructure the same oversight machinery through a modified procedural design. By extending the Inter-Departmental Committee’s jurisdiction to cover “matters” referred by the Ministry with no requirement of a complainant, no defined subject matter, and no guaranteed prior hearing, the proposed rules effectively reconstitute what courts found constitutionally suspect. Individual users posting news and current affairs content are now brought within reach of blocking mechanisms originally designed for institutional publishers.

‍

Conclusion
‍

As seen above, the Draft IT Rules 2026 are unable to meet the constitutional and judicial requirements to regulate free speech. What the proposed amendments construct is a durable system in which platforms self-censor under liability pressure, data is retained without proportionate justification, and content oversight expands through procedural adjustment rather than parliamentary legislation. Regulation of the digital public sphere is both legitimate and necessary. But it must be anchored in law, not in the quiet authority of executive advisories. The law must ultimately remain anchored in constitutional values, guided by the enduring principles of justice, equity, and good conscience.

‍

The comment period closes on 14 April 2026. 

Submissions may be sent to itrules.consultation@meity.gov.in.

‍

References
‍

1. https://www.meity.gov.in/static/uploads/2026/03/30591fc6e322dcbcc9dae84a0f02e9e7.pdf 
2. https://www.meity.gov.in/static/uploads/2026/03/a71a21d35c107f2e528363d3eb17646a.pdf 
3. https://www.meity.gov.in/static/uploads/2026/02/550681ab908f8afb135b0ad42816a1c9.pdf 
4. https://neopolitico.com/india/government-blocks-viral-satirical-reel-impersonating-pm-modi-raising-fresh-questions-on-free-speech-and-digital-regulation/
5. https://internetfreedom.in/sound-the-alarm-iffs-first-read-on-meitys-draft-it-rules-second-amendment-2026/ 

‍