#FactCheck -Claim That India’s GDP Was “Fake for 10 Years” is Misleading

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

‍

A news graphic is being shared on social media claiming that Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath said,“Those who practice casteism and discrimination are the ones opposing UGC. If you do not indulge in caste-based discrimination, what is there to fear?” The CyberPeace’s research found the viral claim circulating on social media to be false. Our research  revealed that Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath never made such a statement. It was also established that the viral news graphic has been digitally edited.

‍

Claim

‍

On February 8, a user on social media platform X (formerly Twitter) shared a news graphic bearing the logo of Navbharat Times, attributing the above statement to CM Yogi Adityanath. The post and its archived version can be seen below, along with screenshots. (Links and screenshots provided)

‍

• https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=878765434968058&set=a.12586118025849 
• https://archive.ph/oCVbH 

‍

‍

Fact Check:

‍

To verify the authenticity of the claim, we conducted a keyword-based search on Google. However, we did not find any credible or reliable media report supporting the viral statement. We further examined the official social media accounts of Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, including his Facebook and Instagram handles. Our review found no post, speech, or statement resembling the claim made in the viral graphic.

Continuing the research , we examined the official social media accounts of Navbharat Times. During this process, we found the original graphic published on the Navbharat Times Facebook page on January 26, 2026. The caption of the original graphic read: “On the occasion of Republic Day 2026, Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath said, ‘No one is above the Constitution.’”

‍

This clearly differs from the claim made in the viral graphic, indicating that the latter was altered.

‍

• https://www.facebook.com/navbharattimes/posts/pfbid0vE6mdTyBwrr 

‍

‍

Conclusion

‍

Our research  confirms that Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath did not make the statement being attributed to him on social media. The viral news graphic is digitally edited and misleading. The claim, therefore, is false.

‍

With AI touching new milestones everyday an increasing need for making it secure is also arising. As these AI companies increase their operations and position in the market as providers of powerful tools in the market. A recent concern due to Anthropic's recent privacy policy update which will be effective from July 8, 2026 shows how companies have begun expanding the amount of personal information they collect in the name of safety, compliance, and trust. While they are being demonstrated as measures to improve safety of users and prevent abuse, it raises important questions about privacy, biometric data, surveillance, data retention, and user autonomy, some of which we will be addressing in this article.

‍

Identity Verification of consumers

‍

One of the most notable update to Anthropic's privacy policy is the category of "Verification Data." According to the policy, users may be asked to verify their age or identity in certain circumstances. Depending on the verification method, Anthropic may collect:

• Images of government-issued identity documents;
• Information appearing on those documents, including identification numbers and date of birth for age verification;
• Photographs or videos of the user;
• Facial geometry templates, which may constitute biometric data under certain legal frameworks; and
• The outcome of the verification process.

At first, this may appear similar to the Know Your Customer (KYC) procedures employed by banks or financial institutions but Claude is not a banking service. It is a consumer AI platform. The issue is not that verification exists, but that the circumstances under which it may be required remain undefined.

‍

THE PROBLEM WITH “CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES”

‍

The policy refers to verification being required in "certain circumstances." The public notification from Anthropic mentions that these circumstances may include access to particular features, routine platform integrity checks, abuse prevention mechanisms, policy enforcement activities, or legal compliance obligations. The ambiguity of this phrase raises important concerns. From a user perspective, it is difficult to determine, When verification may be triggered ? Whether verification applies only to suspicious accounts ? Whether access to future features may depend upon verification ? Whether users in particular regions will face more frequent verification requirements ? Whether verification requests may increase as AI regulation expands ? This broad language and discretionary power that the company has along with flexibility in the hands of the company creates uncertainty for users who may have initially joined a platform expecting only an email address and payment information to be required.

‍

Government IDs collection: A new risk category

‍

Almost all AI services have operated without collecting government-issued identity documents. Once a company begins processing such information, the privacy implications change dramatically. Because government issued IDs contain: Full legal names, Dates of birth, Identification numbers, Addresses, Photographs and information regarding nationality. When companies collect these documents, they will have an important database of highly sensitive personal information. Even if the company itself does not retain the documents indefinitely, the existence of a verification process introduces additional privacy and security risks. As per Anthropic has stated that identity verification is conducted through third-party providers such as Persona. According to article on the official site titled ‘Identity verification on Claude’, Persona stores the identity documents and selfie data, while Anthropic retains access to verification records when necessary.  From the user's perspective, several important realities remain: First, the data still exists somewhere. Second, another third party organization is now involved in processing highly sensitive personal information. Third, Anthropic retains the ability to access verification records under certain circumstances. Therefore, although Anthropic may not directly maintain copies of every uploaded identity document, the practical result remains that sensitive information enters a broader ecosystem of entities and systems. Identity documents today are among the most valuable forms of personal information from the perspective of fraudsters, cybercriminals, and malicious actors. Therefore, any system that handles such documents becomes an attractive target for attack.

More information on persona’s government ID verification- https://withpersona.com/blog/what-is-government-id-verification 

‍

The Biometric Dimension

‍

Another significant aspect of the update is the reference to facial geometry templates. Unlike passwords, biometric identifiers cannot easily be changed if compromised. A person can replace a password or even obtain a new identification card, but they cannot simply obtain a new face. Facial geometry templates are sensitive because they enable automated identity matching. Although these templates, as claimed, are not equivalent to photographs, they are nevertheless derived from unique physical characteristics of a person. In many jurisdictions, including parts of the European Union and several U.S. states, biometric data receives enhanced legal protection because of its permanence and sensitivity, let us see how it unfolds in these jurisdictions.

‍

The Unanswered Retention Question

‍

It is unclear in the policy as to how long the data will be retained because retention limits serve as one of the most important safeguards in modern privacy law, they have given another vague answer that “They're bound to protect it with industry-standard security controls and delete it in line with the retention limits we've set and applicable law.” The longer sensitive information remains stored, the greater the likelihood of unauthorized access, misuse, accidental disclosure, or legal compulsion.

‍

Court Orders and Government Access

‍

Anthropic may be required to disclose information pursuant to valid legal processes such as subpoenas, court orders, warrants, or regulatory directives. The existence of identity verification records means that future requests could potentially be linked to verified identities rather than pseudonymous accounts. This does not mean governments receive unrestricted access to user data. However, it does mean that once identity verification information exists within a company's ecosystem, it may become subject to lawful disclosure requirements. The privacy implications are therefore materially different from those associated with anonymous or pseudonymous AI usage.

‍

Shifting Responsibility onto Users

‍

Another concern is that the privacy policy states that users are responsible for ensuring they possess the necessary rights, permissions, or authority when uploading files, connecting third-party services, or instructing Claude to retrieve information. Anthropic is effectively informing users that they bear responsibility for ensuring that uploaded or connected data is lawfully accessible. As AI assistants gain greater capabilities, this transfer of responsibility from platform to user is likely to become increasingly common. Beyond individual privacy, Anthropic's verification policy also raises larger questions about data sovereignty and the cross-border movement of sensitive personal information. In India, the Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India judgment recognized privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, affirming that individuals have the right to informational self-determination and control over their personal data. Yet, under Anthropic's verification framework, an Indian user may be required to upload a government-issued identity document and biometric information, which are processed by Persona, a U.S.-based identity verification company acting on behalf of Anthropic. Although users voluntarily consent to this process, it nevertheless results in highly sensitive identity information crossing national borders and entering the control of foreign private entities governed primarily by foreign contractual arrangements and multiple legal regimes. While governments issue identity documents as sovereign instruments of citizenship, their verification and processing are increasingly outsourced to multinational technology companies. Questions arise not only about how securely such information is handled, but also about which country's laws ultimately govern access, retention, disclosure, and accountability when personal data leaves the jurisdiction in which it originated. Under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, cross-border transfer of personal data is generally permitted unless the Central Government specifically restricts transfers to certain jurisdictions. Therefore, a foreign company processing identity documents is not, by itself, unlawful but this legality does not eliminate legitimate concerns. Users realistically have limited bargaining power and little practical understanding of how long their identity documents, biometric templates, or verification records will be retained, who within the corporate ecosystem may access them, or how they may be disclosed pursuant to foreign legal processes. 

‍

Conclusion

‍

The policy is commendable in some respects because it openly identifies the categories of information that may be collected rather than obscuring them behind vague terminology. However, important concerns remain regarding the extent of verification triggers, the handling of biometric information, the absence of clearly disclosed retention periods, and the long-term implications of linking AI accounts to government-issued identities. As AI systems become more integrated into daily life, these questions will likely become central issues in debates about digital privacy, surveillance, autonomy, and the future governance of artificial intelligence.

‍