#FactCheck -Social Media Claim of ICC’s One-Year Ban on Pakistan Cricket Is Misleading

‍Brief Overview of the EU AI Act

The EU AI Act, Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, was officially published in the EU Official Journal on 12 July 2024. This landmark legislation on Artificial Intelligence (AI) will come into force just 20 days after publication, setting harmonized rules across the EU. It amends key regulations and directives to ensure a robust framework for AI technologies.  The AI Act, a set of EU rules governing AI, has been in development for two years and now, the EU AI Act enters into force across all 27 EU Member States on 1 August 2024, with certain future deadlines tied up and the enforcement of the majority of its provisions will commence on 2 August 2026. The law prohibits certain uses of AI tools, including those that threaten citizens' rights, such as biometric categorization, untargeted scraping of faces, and systems that try to read emotions are banned in the workplace and schools, as are social scoring systems. It also prohibits the use of predictive policing tools in some instances. The law takes a phased approach to implementing the EU's AI rulebook, meaning there are various deadlines between now and then as different legal provisions will start to apply.

The framework puts different obligations on AI developers, depending on use cases and perceived risk. The bulk of AI uses will not be regulated as they are considered low-risk, but a small number of potential AI  use cases are banned under the law. High-risk use cases, such as biometric uses of AI or AI used in law enforcement, employment, education, and critical infrastructure, are allowed under the law but developers of such apps face obligations in areas like data quality and anti-bias considerations. A third risk tier also applies some lighter transparency requirements for makers of tools like AI chatbots.

In case of failure to comply with the Act, the companies in the EU providing, distributing, importing, and using AI systems and GPAI models, are subject to fines of up to EUR 35 million or seven per cent of the total worldwide annual turnover, whichever is higher.

Key highlights of EU AI Act Provisions

• The AI Act classifies AI according to its risk. It prohibits Unacceptable risks such as social scoring systems and manipulative AI. The regulation mostly addresses high-risk AI systems.
• Limited-risk AI systems are subject to lighter transparency obligations and according to the act, the developers and deployers must ensure that the end-users are aware that the interaction they are having is with AI such as Chatbots and Deepfakes. The AI Act allows the free use of minimal-risk AI. This includes the majority of AI applications currently available in the EU single market like AI-enabled video games, and spam filters, but with the advancement of Gen AI changes with regards to this might be done. The majority of obligations fall on providers (developers) of high-risk AI systems that intend to place on the market or put into service high-risk AI systems in the EU, regardless of whether they are based in the EU or a third country. And also, a third-country provider where the high-risk AI system’s output is used in the EU.
• Users are natural or legal persons who deploy an AI system in a professional capacity, not affected end-users. Users (deployers) of high-risk AI systems have some obligations, though less than providers (developers). This applies to users located in the EU, and third-country users where the AI system’s output is used in the EU.
• General purpose AI or GPAI model providers must provide technical documentation, and instructions for use, comply with the Copyright Directive, and publish a summary of the content used for training. Free and open license GPAI model providers only need to comply with copyright and publish the training data summary, unless they present a systemic risk. All providers of GPAI models that present a systemic risk – open or closed – must also conduct model evaluations, and adversarial testing, and track and report serious incidents and ensure cybersecurity protections.
• The Codes of Practice will account for international approaches. It will cover but not necessarily be limited to the obligations, particularly the relevant information to include in technical documentation for authorities and downstream providers, identification of the type and nature of systemic risks and their sources, and the modalities of risk management accounting for specific challenges in addressing risks due to the way they may emerge and materialize throughout the value chain. The AI Office may invite GPAI model providers, and relevant national competent authorities to participate in drawing up the codes, while civil society, industry, academia, downstream providers and independent experts may support the process.

Application & Timeline of Act

The EU AI Act will be fully applicable 24 months after entry into force, but some parts will be applicable sooner, for instance the ban on AI systems posing unacceptable risks will apply six months after the entry into force. The Codes of Practice will apply nine months after entry into force. Rules on general-purpose AI systems that need to comply with transparency requirements will apply 12 months after the entry into force. High-risk systems will have more time to comply with the requirements as the obligations concerning them will become applicable 36 months after the entry into force. The expected timeline for the same is:

• August 1st, 2024: The AI Act will enter into force.
• February 2025: Prohibition of certain AI systems - Chapters I (general provisions) & II (prohibited AI systems) will apply; Prohibition of certain AI systems.
• August 2025: Chapter III Section 4 (notifying authorities), Chapter V (general purpose AI models), Chapter VII (governance), Chapter XII (confidentiality and penalties), and Article 78 (confidentiality) will apply, except for Article 101 (fines for General Purpose AI providers); Requirements for new GPAI models. 
• August 2026: The whole AI Act applies, except for Article 6(1) & corresponding obligations (one of the categories of high-risk AI systems);
•  August 2027: Article 6(1) & corresponding obligations apply.

The AI Act sets out clear definitions for the different actors involved in AI, such as the providers, deployers, importers, distributors, and product manufacturers. This means all parties involved in the development, usage, import, distribution, or manufacturing of AI systems will be held accountable. Along with this, the AI Act also applies to providers and deployers of AI systems located outside of the EU, e.g., in Switzerland, if output produced by the system is intended to be used in the EU. The Act applies to any AI system within the EU that is on the market, in service, or in use, covering both AI providers (the companies selling AI systems) and AI deployers (the organizations using those systems).

In short, the AI Act will apply to different companies across the AI distribution chain, including providers, deployers, importers, and distributors (collectively referred to as “Operators”). The EU AI Act also has extraterritorial application and can also apply to companies not established in the EU, or providers outside the EU if they -make an AI system or GPAI model available on the EU market. Even if only the output generated by the AI system is used in the EU, the Act still applies to such providers and deployers. 

CyberPeace Outlook 

The EU AI Act, approved by EU lawmakers in 2024, is a landmark legislation designed to protect citizens' health, safety, and fundamental rights from potential harm caused by AI systems. The AI Act will apply to AI systems and GPAI models. The Act creates a tiered risk categorization system with various regulations and stiff penalties for noncompliance. The Act adopts a risk-based approach to AI governance, categorizing potential risks into four tiers: unacceptable, high, limited, and low. Violations of banned systems carry the highest fine: €35 million, or 7 percent of global annual revenue. It establishes transparency requirements for general-purpose AI systems. The regulation also provides specific rules for general-purpose AI (GPAI) models and lays down more stringent requirements for GPAI models with 'high-impact capabilities' that could pose a systemic risk and have a significant impact on the internal market. For high-risk AI systems, the AI Act addresses the issues of fundamental rights impact assessment and data protection impact assessment.

The EU AI Act aims to enhance trust in AI technologies by establishing clear regulatory standards governing AI. We encourage regulatory frameworks that strive to balance the desire to foster innovation with the critical need to prevent unethical practices that may cause user harm. The legislation can be seen as strengthening the EU's position as a global leader in AI innovation and developing regulatory frameworks for emerging technologies. It sets a global benchmark for regulating AI. The companies to which the act applies will need to make sure their practices align with the same. The act may inspire other nations to develop their own legislation contributing to global AI governance. The world of AI is complex and challenging, the implementation of regulatory checks, and compliance by the concerned companies, all pose a conundrum. However, in the end, balancing innovation with ethical considerations is paramount. 

At the same hand, the tech sector welcomes regulatory progress but warns that overly-rigid regulations could stifle innovation. Hence flexibility and adaptability are key to effective AI governance. The journey towards robust AI regulation has begun in major countries, and it is important that we find the right balance between safety and innovation and also take into consideration the industry reactions.

References: 

1. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L_202401689
2. https://www.theverge.com/2024/7/12/24197058/eu-ai-act-regulations-bans-deadline
3. https://techcrunch.com/2024/07/12/eus-ai-act-gets-published-in-blocs-official-journal-starting-clock-on-legal-deadlines/
4. https://www.wsgr.com/en/insights/eu-ai-act-to-enter-into-force-in-august.html
5. https://www.techtarget.com/searchenterpriseai/tip/Is-your-business-ready-for-the-EU-AI-Act
6. https://www.simmons-simmons.com/en/publications/clyimpowh000ouxgkw1oidakk/the-eu-ai-act-a-quick-guide

‍

Introduction

‍

The use of AI in content production, especially images and videos, is changing the foundations of evidence. AI-generated videos and images can mirror a person’s facial features, voice, or actions with a level of fidelity to which the average individual may not be able to distinguish real from fake. The ability to provide creative solutions is indeed a beneficial aspect of this technology. However, its misuse has been rapidly escalating over recent years. This creates threats to privacy and dignity, and facilitates the creation of dis/misinformation. Its real-world consequences are the manipulation of elections, national security threats, and the erosion of trust in society. 

‍

Why India Needs Deepfake Regulation

‍

Deepfake regulation is urgently needed in India, evidenced by the recent Rashmika Mandanna incident, where a hoax deepfake of an actress created a scandal throughout the country. This was the first time that an individual's image was superimposed on the body of another woman in a viral deepfake video that fooled many viewers and created outrage among those who were deceived by the video. The incident even led to law enforcement agencies issuing warnings to the public about the dangers of manipulated media.

This was not an isolated incident; many influencers, actors, leaders and common people have fallen victim to deepfake pornography, deepfake speech scams, defraudations, and other malicious uses of deepfake technology. The rapid proliferation of deepfake technology is outpacing any efforts by lawmakers to regulate its widespread use. In this regard, a Private Member’s Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha in its Winter Session. This proposal was presented to the Lok Sabha as an individual MP's Private Member's Bill. Even though these have had a low rate of success in being passed into law historically, they do provide an opportunity for the government to take notice of and respond to emerging issues. In fact, Private Member's Bills have been the catalyst for government action on many important matters and have also provided an avenue for parliamentary discussion and future policy creation. The introduction of this Bill demonstrates the importance of addressing the public concern surrounding digital impersonation and demonstrates that the Parliament acknowledges digital deepfakes to be a significant concern and, therefore, in need of a legislative framework to combat them.

‍

Key Features Proposed by the New Deepfake Regulation Bill

‍

The proposed legislation aims to create a strong legal structure around the creation, distribution and use of deepfake content in India. Its five core proposals  are: 

1. Prior Consent Requirement: individuals must give their written approval before producing or distributing deepfake media, including digital representations of themselves, as well as their faces, images, likenesses and voices. This aims to protect women, celebrities, minors, and everyday citizens against the use of their identities with the intent to harm them or their reputations or to harass them through the production of deepfakes.

2. Penalties for Malicious Deepfakes: Serious criminal consequences should be placed for creating or sharing deepfake media, particularly when it is intended to cause harm (defame, harass, impersonate, deceive or manipulate another person). The Bill also addresses financially fraudulent use of deepfakes, political misinformation, interfering with elections and other types of explicit AI-generated media. 

3. Establishment of a Deepfake Task Force: To look at the potential impact of deepfakes on national security, elections and public order, as well as on public safety and privacy. This group will work with academic institutions, AI research labs and technology companies to create advanced tools for the detection of deepfakes and establish best practices for the safe and responsible use of generative AI. 

4. Creation of a Deepfake Detection and Awareness Fund: To assist with the development of tools for detecting deepfakes, increasing the capacity of law enforcement agencies to investigate cybercrime, promoting public awareness of deepfakes through national campaigns, and funding research on artificial intelligence safety and misinformation.

‍

How Other Countries Are Handling Deepfakes

‍

1. United States
Many States in the United States, including California and Texas, have enacted laws to prohibit the use of politically deceptive deepfakes during elections. Additionally, the Federal Government is currently developing regulations requiring that AI-generated content be clearly labelled. Social Media Platforms are also being encouraged to implement a requirement for users to disclose deepfakes.

2. United Kingdom
In the United Kingdom, it is illegal to create or distribute intimate deepfake images without consent; violators face jail time. The Online Safety Act emphasises the accountability of digital media providers by requiring them to identify, eliminate, and avert harmful synthetic content, which makes their role in curating safe environments all the more important.

3. European Union:
The EU has enacted the EU AI Act, which governs the use of deepfakes by requiring an explicit label to be affixed to any AI-generated content. The absence of a label would subject an offending party to potentially severe regulatory consequences; therefore, any platform wishing to do business in the EU should evaluate the risks associated with deepfakes and adhere strictly to the EU's guidelines for transparency regarding manipulated media.

4. China:
China has among the most rigorous regulations regarding deepfakes anywhere on the planet. All AI-manipulated media will have to be marked with a visible watermark, users will have to authenticate their identities prior to being allowed to use advanced AI tools, and online platforms have a legal requirement to take proactive measures to identify and remove synthetic materials from circulation.

‍

Conclusion

‍

Deepfake technology has the potential to be one of the greatest (and most dangerous) innovations of AI technology. There is much to learn from incidents such as that involving Rashmika Mandanna, as well as the proliferation of deepfake technology that abuses globally, demonstrating how easily truth can be altered in the digital realm. The new Private Member's Bill created by India seeks to provide for a comprehensive framework to address these abuses based on prior consent, penalties that actually work, technical preparedness, and public education/awareness. With other nations of the world moving towards increased regulation of AI technology, proposals such as this provide a direction for India to become a leader in the field of responsible digital governance.

‍

References 

‍

1. https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/lok-sabha-introduces-bill-to-regulate-deepfake-content-with-consent-rules-9761943
2. https://m.economictimes.com/news/india/shiv-sena-mp-introduces-private-members-bill-to-regulate-deepfakes/articleshow/125802794.cms
3. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-67305557
4. https://www.akingump.com/en/insights/blogs/ag-data-dive/california-deepfake-laws-first-in-country-to-take-effect
5. https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-21-165/ 
6. https://www.mishcon.com/news/when-ai-impersonates-taking-action-against-deepfakes-in-the-uk#:~:text=As%20of%2031%20January%202024,of%20intimate%20deepfakes%20without%20consent. 
7. https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-tech-ai-deepfakes-labeling-rules-images-elections-iti-c2pa/ 
8. https://www.reuters.com/article/technology/china-seeks-to-root-out-fake-news-and-deepfakes-with-new-online-content-rules-idUSKBN1Y30VT/

‍

Executive Summary

The ongoing conflict between the US-Israel and Iran has entered its third week. During this period, Iran reportedly targeted the US military base at Al Udeid in Qatar. Amid this, a video is going viral on social media showing people, vehicles, and chaos following an alleged attack. Some users are sharing it as footage of an Iranian missile strike on the Al Udeid Air Base. However, an research by the CyberPeacefound that the viral video is not real but AI-generated.

‍

Claim:

‍

An Instagram user “thenewscartel” shared the video on March 17, 2026, with the caption: “Al Udeid Air Base, Qatar (March 16, 2026): Iran launched ballistic missiles and drones at the US military’s largest Middle East base near Doha as retaliation for US-Israel strikes in Tehran. Qatar’s Defense Ministry confirmed multiple launches. Most were intercepted by Qatari air defense. One missile landed near the base or in an uninhabited area. No casualties or major damage reported. Explosions were heard in Doha, and smoke was seen in the sky.”

‍

• https://www.instagram.com/reels/DV-c-zpjA_e/ 
• https://perma.cc/FF2G-3UKC?type=standard 

‍

‍

‍

Fact Check:

‍

To verify the claim, we closely examined the viral video. We observed multiple visual inconsistencies—one person appears to be walking in reverse, another disappears and reappears, and the body shapes of people distort as they begin to run. These anomalies strongly indicate AI manipulation. We then analyzed the video using the AI detection tool Zhuque AI, which indicated an approximately 80 percent likelihood that the video is AI-generated.

‍

‍

‍

‍

Further analysis using Hive Moderation showed around a 57 percent probability of the video being AI-generated.

‍

‍

‍

Conclusion:

‍

Our research found that the viral video being shared as footage of an Iranian attack on the US military base at Al Udeid in Qatar is AI-generated and not related to any real incident.

‍