#FactCheck: A digitally altered video of actor Sebastian Stan shows him changing a ‘Tell Modi’ poster to one that reads ‘I Told Modi’ on a display panel.

Introduction

For two decades, cybercrime enforcement was built around a simple assumption: criminals hide behind screens, but they still operate mostly within reachable borders. That assumption has collapsed. Today's fraud economy runs through industrial-scale scam compounds in Myanmar and Cambodia, laundering networks spanning a dozen jurisdictions, and trafficked labour forced to defraud victims thousands of miles away. INTERPOL's own trend reporting has tracked victims from more than 60 countries pulled into scam operations that now stretch well beyond Southeast Asia into Africa, the Gulf, and Latin America. Global losses from this activity are estimated in the hundreds of billions of dollars annually, and the networks rebuild faster than any single government can dismantle them.

A Threat That Outran the Old Playbook

The mismatch is the real story behind a wave of policy moves in 2025 and 2026. The August 12, 2026 U.S. National Security Presidential Memorandum authorising vetted private companies to conduct government-supervised offensive cyber operations against transnational criminal organisations is one data point in that wave, not the whole story. Washington's move sits alongside a broader, still-unfinished experiment: can the international system build cooperative machinery fast enough to match a threat that treats borders as an inconvenience rather than a barrier?

Three Tracks of International Response

Three distinct but overlapping tracks have emerged.

The treaty: The most consequential recent development is the UN Convention against Cybercrime, adopted by the General Assembly in December 2024 and opened for signature in Hanoi in October 2025, where 71 states and the EU signed on. It is the first comprehensive global treaty addressing cybercrime and cross-border evidence sharing, building on the older Budapest Convention framework that has anchored cooperation since 2004. The Hanoi Convention needs 40 ratifications to enter into force; as of mid-2026, only three states (Qatar, Azerbaijan, and Vietnam) had ratified it, and human rights groups continue to warn that its broad scope could be used by authoritarian governments to justify surveillance and cross-border data requests dressed up as cybercrime cooperation. The treaty's fate will hinge on a Conference of States Parties process now being negotiated, where democracies are pushing for genuine multi-stakeholder oversight rather than a rubber stamp.

The operational track: While treaty diplomacy moves slowly, police-to-police cooperation has scaled up dramatically. INTERPOL's Operation First Light, now an annual standing initiative, illustrates the trajectory: its 2026 iteration spanned January to April, generated over 5,800 arrests and roughly $293 million in intercepted funds, and made heavy use of the Global Rapid Intervention of Payments mechanism to freeze illicit transfers before they disappeared into crypto wallets. A parallel operation led by Dubai Police with the FBI and Chinese authorities dismantled nine pig-butchering compounds across Myanmar, Indonesia, Cambodia, and Thailand, seizing more than $701 million. In Europe, Europol's EMPACT framework has entered a new 2026–2029 cycle, deepening ties with Frontex, Eurojust, and regional partners like Ameripol and the EL PACTTO programme in Latin America, effectively building a lattice of standing coordination bodies rather than one-off task forces. These operations demonstrate real capacity, but they also expose the "whack-a-mole" problem: raided compounds in Myanmar's Myawaddy region simply relocated, reconnected via satellite internet, and resumed operations within weeks, according to regional reporting.

The public-private track: This is where the U.S. memorandum fits into a genuinely global pattern rather than standing alone. The United Kingdom's 2026–2029 Fraud Strategy centres on a £31 million Online Crime Centre, opening in 2026, that fuses data from the National Crime Agency, the intelligence community, and private partners across banking, telecoms, and technology into a single coordination hub building on existing arrangements like Stop Scams UK, where telecom operators and banks already share suspicious SIM and account data in near real time. In the U.S., a June 2026 joint action involving the Justice Department, Meta, Microsoft, Google, Apple, and Coinbase froze $3.8 billion in cryptocurrency and disrupted 1.4 million fraud-linked accounts, showing that platform cooperation can move faster than formal treaty processes. Singapore has positioned itself as a hub for this model too, anchoring the Global Anti-Scam Alliance, which now includes ASEAN's own foundation as a member, bringing governments, banks, and tech platforms into shared intelligence loops. What distinguishes the U.S. memorandum is that it goes a step further than data-sharing: it authorises companies to take disruptive technical action, not just contribute intelligence, under a legal theory that folds them into the government's own authority under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act's law-enforcement exception.

Where the System Still Breaks Down

Despite this activity, structural gaps, like jurisdiction, are the deepest ones. Scam compounds deliberately locate in special economic zones and border regions precisely because territorial control there is contested or weak, leaving no single government with clean authority to act. ASEAN's own policy work acknowledges that nearly every stage of the regional scam value chain crosses at least one border, which is why the bloc has shifted toward standing coordination bodies like its Working Group on Anti-Online Scams rather than relying on bilateral requests.

Attribution and accountability lag behind operational tempo. Financial intelligence and blockchain analytics have improved enforcement precision, but identifying the human traffickers and financiers sitting above front-line scam operators remains slow, uneven, and dependent on political will in host countries.

Governance of the newer public-private authorities is also unsettled. Human rights advocates flag that expanding both the Hanoi Convention's surveillance-adjacent powers and unilateral hack-back authorities like the U.S. memorandum could, without careful oversight, blur the line between fighting organised fraud and enabling broader digital overreach. The U.S. memorandum's own guardrails, which are a ban on operations causing serious injury or rising to a use of force, mandatory federal sign-off, and a $1 million forfeitable bond, reflect an awareness of that risk, but its implementing procedures remain classified, and comparable transparency gaps exist in several other national programs.

The Emerging Consensus

What's notable is not any single instrument but the convergence: nearly every serious national or regional response now combines the same three ingredients deeper platform and financial-sector data sharing, standing multilateral operational coordination, and a cautious expansion of what non-state actors are permitted to do. The countries and blocs making the fastest progress, from the UK's Online Crime Centre to INTERPOL's payment-interdiction tools to ASEAN's regional information-sharing arrangement, are the ones treating cyber-enabled transnational crime as a persistent infrastructure problem rather than a series of discrete crimes to be prosecuted after the fact. Whether that convergence produces durable results or simply better-coordinated whack-a-mole will depend on the unglamorous work still ahead: ratifying treaties, writing classified rulebooks, and building the cross-border trust that lets financial and technical data move as fast as the criminals do.

Conclusion 

Transnational cybercrime has outgrown fragmented national enforcement. The emerging combination of international treaties, operational cooperation, and public-private partnerships offers a stronger response, but serious gaps in jurisdiction, accountability, and oversight remain. Ultimately, success will depend on whether states can build cooperation and safeguards capable of matching criminals’ speed, adaptability, and global reach.

Sources

• Presidential Memorandum: Expanding Capabilities to Combat Transnational Cyber-Enabled Crime — The White House
• United Nations Convention against Cybercrime — UNODC
• The Promise and Peril of the U.N. Convention Against Cybercrime — Just Security
• Moving Forward with the United Nations Convention against Cybercrime — ICCLR
• Growing threat of transnational scam centres highlighted at INTERPOL General Assembly
• Over 5,800 arrests, USD 293 million intercepted in global fraud bust — INTERPOL
• Operation First Light 2026: 276 Arrested, $701M Seized — Breached.Company

‍

Introduction

In a world where social media dictates public perception and content created by AI dilutes the difference between fact and fiction, mis/disinformation has become a national cybersecurity threat. Today, disinformation campaigns are designed for their effect, with political manipulation, interference in public health, financial fraud, and even community violence. India, with its 900+ million internet users, is especially susceptible to this distortion online. The advent of deep fakes, AI-text, and hyper-personalised propaganda has made disinformation more plausible and more difficult to identify than ever. 

What is Misinformation?

Misinformation is false or inaccurate information provided without intent to deceive. Disinformation, on the other hand, is content intentionally designed to mislead and created and disseminated to harm or manipulate. Both are responsible for what experts have termed an "infodemic", overwhelming people with a deluge of false information that hinders their ability to make decisions. 

Examples of impactful mis/disinformation are:

• COVID-19 vaccine conspiracy theories (e.g., infertility or microchips)
• Election-related false news (e.g., EVM hacking so-called)
• Social disinformation (e.g., manipulated videos of riots)
• Financial scams (e.g., bogus UPI cashbacks or RBI refund plans)

How Misinformation Spreads

Misinformation goes viral because of both technology design and human psychology. Social media sites such as Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), Instagram, and WhatsApp are designed to amplify messages that elicit high levels of emotional reactions are usually polarising, sensationalistic, or fear-mongering posts. This causes falsehoods or misinformation to get much more attention and activity than authentic facts, and therefore prioritises virality over truth.

Another major consideration is the misuse of generative AI and deep fakes. Applications like ChatGPT, Midjourney, and ElevenLabs can be used to generate highly convincing fake news stories, audio recordings, or videos imitating public figures. These synthetic media assets are increasingly being misused by bad actors for political impersonation, propagating fabricated news reports, and even carrying out voice-based scams.

To this danger are added coordinated disinformation efforts that are commonly operated by foreign or domestic players with certain political or ideological objectives. These efforts employ networks of bot networks on social media, deceptive hashtags, and fabricated images to sway public opinion, especially during politically sensitive events such as elections, protests, or foreign wars. Such efforts are usually automated with the help of bots and meme-driven propaganda, which makes them scalable and traceless.

Why Misinformation is Dangerous

Mis/disinformation is a significant threat to democratic stability, public health, and personal security. Perhaps one of the most pernicious threats is that it undermines public trust. If it goes unchecked, then it destroys trust in core institutions like the media, judiciary, and electoral system. This erosion of public trust has the potential to destabilise democracies and heighten political polarisation.

In India, false information has had terrible real-world outcomes, especially in terms of creating violence. Misleading messages regarding child kidnappers on WhatsApp have resulted in rural mob lynching. As well, communal riots have been sparked due to manipulated religious videos, and false terrorist warnings have created public panic.

The pandemic of COVID-19 also showed us how misinformation can be lethal. Misinformation regarding vaccine safety, miracle cures, and the source of viruses resulted in mass vaccine hesitancy, utilisation of dangerous treatments, and even avoidable deaths.

Aside from health and safety, mis/disinformation has also been used in financial scams. Cybercriminals take advantage of the fear and curiosity of the people by promoting false investment opportunities, phishing URLs, and impersonation cons. Victims get tricked into sharing confidential information or remitting money using seemingly official government or bank websites, leading to losses in crypto Ponzi schemes, UPI scams, and others.

India’s Response to Misinformation

1. PIB Fact Check Unit

The Press Information Bureau (PIB) operates a fact-checking service to debunk viral false information, particularly on government policies. In 3 years, the unit identified more than 1,500 misinformation posts across media.

2. Indian Cybercrime Coordination Centre (I4C)

Working under MHA, I4C has collaborated with social media platforms to identify sources of viral misinformation. Through the Cyber Tipline, citizens can report misleading content through 1930 or cybercrime.gov.in.

3. IT Rules  (The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 [updated as on 6.4.2023]

The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules were updated to enable the government to following aspects:

• Removal of unlawful content
• Platform accountability

4. Detection Tools

There are certain detection tool that works as shields in assisting fact-checkers and enforcement bodies to:

• Identify synthetic voice and video scams through technical measures.
• Track misinformation networks.
• Label manipulated media in real-time.

CyberPeace View: Solutions for a Misinformation-Resilient Bharat

1. Scale Digital Literacy

"Think Before You Share" programs for rural schools to teach students to check sources, identify clickbait, and not reshare fake news. 

2. Platform Accountability

Technology platforms need to:

• Flag manipulated media.
• Offer algorithmic transparency.
• Mark AI-created media.
• Provide localised fact-checking across diverse Indian languages.

3. Community-Led Verification

Establish WhatsApp and Telegram "Fact Check Hubs" headed by expert organisations, industry experts,  journalists, and digital volunteers who can report at the grassroots level fake content.

4. Legal Framework for Deepfakes

Formulate targeted legislation under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and other relevant laws to make malicious deepfake and synthetic media use a criminal offense for:

• Electoral manipulation.
• Defamation.
• Financial scams.

5. AI Counter-Misinformation Infrastructure

Invest in public sector AI models trained specifically to identify:

• Coordinated disinformation patterns.
• Botnet-driven hashtag campaigns.
• Real-time viral fake news bursts.

‍

Conclusion

Mis/disinformation is more than just a content issue, it's a public health, cybersecurity, and democratic stability challenge. As India enters the digitally empowered world, making a secure, informed, and resilient information ecosystem is no longer a choice; now, it's imperative. Fighting misinformation demands a whole-of-society effort with AI innovation, public education, regulatory overhaul, and tech responsibility. The danger is there, but so is the opportunity to guide the world toward a fact-first, trust-based digital age. It's time to act.

References

• https://www.pib.gov.in/factcheck.aspx
• https://www.meity.gov.in/static/uploads/2024/02/Information-Technology-Intermediary-Guidelines-and-Digital-Media-Ethics-Code-Rules-2021-updated-06.04.2023-.pdf
• https://www.cyberpeace.org
• https://www.bbc.com/news/topics/cezwr3d2085t
• https://www.logically.ai
• https://www.altnews.in

‍

Introduction

The war over children and social media, once mostly waged in headlines, committee hearings, and video clips of executives begging apologies from distraught families, has officially reached to courts. This past Monday, August 26, 2026, Meta reportedly agreed to settle for an estimated $18 billion for the sprawling, multi-state class action suit that accused the social media titan of intentionally designing Instagram and Facebook to be addictive for children and of actively failing to shield them from child abuse imagery, disordered eating websites and much more. This record $18 billion, one of the largest ever obtained against a consumer-facing business, occurred just over a week into a high-profile trial in Oakland, in which four states pursued nearly $1.4 trillion in damages against Meta. Even more important than the headline figure, though, is what actually lies in the fine print (or what the settlement leaves distinctly out): the future of teen safety law.

What Meta agreed to pay  and to whom

The settlement resolves claims brought jointly by 29 states in 2023, which eventually grew into a coalition of 47 states, the District of Columbia, and several U.S. territories. Just over $17 billion goes toward that multistate case, with the remainder settling claims from other states. Notably, three states, Texas, New Mexico, and Florida, settled separately. Texas alone secured over $1 billion, on top of the $1.4 billion Meta paid the state in 2024 over biometric data misuse. New Mexico had already won its own jury trial in March 2026, when jurors found Meta violated the state's consumer protection law and ordered a $375 million penalty; a judge later added further penalties, pushing that case's total past $560 million.

Under the multistate deal, there's a revealing structural detail: Meta will hand over only 70% of the total (about $12.7 billion) unless TikTok and YouTube also agree to adopt matching safety measures, daily time limits, night mode, and age assurance tools. The remaining 30% ($5.3 billion) is contingent on rivals falling in line and paying comparable sums. In other words, Meta is using its own settlement as leverage to drag competitors into the same regulatory box, a move Meta's chief legal officer, C.J. Mahoney, framed as setting "the right path forward for our whole industry".

Changes made by the Platform

Beyond the check, Meta has committed to a list of design changes for teen accounts:

• A default two-hour daily screen-time limit, with prompts every 15 minutes encouraging "intentional use"
• Accounts that Meta flags belonging to minors will be blocked from the apps overnight (midnight–6 a.m.)
• Notifications muted during school hours (8 a.m.–3 p.m.)
• Teens will no longer see "like" counts on their own or others' posts by default
• Continued investment in AI-driven age-detection technology — the "adult classifier" system Meta has been building since 2021, which scans behavioral signals (who you follow, what you engage with, even "happy birthday" posts) to guess whether an account belongs to a minor, regardless of the birthday entered at signup

Meta has also publicly called on app stores to shoulder more of the age-verification burden themselves, a signal that the next legal battleground may shift from the apps themselves to the operating systems and stores that distribute them.

Why critics say the "money machine" walks away largely intact

Here is the uncomfortable arithmetic several legal analysts have pointed out: Meta's $18 billion is being paid out over 10 years, against a company whose 2025 revenue exceeded $200 billion. As one technology litigator told TechCrunch, spreading the payment over a decade "really does blunt the financial impact of the large number". Meta did not admit wrongdoing. No executive faces personal liability. And crucially, the design changes Meta agreed to are largely features it had already begun rolling out voluntarily: teen accounts, PG-13 content defaults, and AI age detection, meaning the settlement in some ways ratifies Meta's existing roadmap rather than forcing a fundamentally different business model. Child-safety advocates have voiced similar scepticism. As one advocacy group leader put it around Meta's earlier safety announcements, such moves are as much about managing the narrative as they are about substantive protection.

Work in Progress

Perhaps the most important vulnerability in the settlement is this: nearly every protection Meta's promise depends on accurately knowing who is a teenager. Age-verification and age-prediction technology remains genuinely unreliable. Meta itself has never disclosed hard accuracy figures for its AI "adult classifier", and outside researchers have long warned that both self-declared birthdates and AI inference are trivially gamed by tech-savvy teens — and prone to misclassifying adults. If the underlying age-detection layer is porous, the two-hour limits, overnight blackouts, and muted like counts are protections that exist only for the users who show up to be counted.

Why this case is really about digital ID

This is where the story stops being just a corporate-liability story and becomes a civil-liberties one. The original complaint from California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey explicitly asked the court to compel Meta to implement "multi-layered age verification at account sign-up" going beyond birthdates to methods like submitting student IDs. As digital-rights outlet Reclaim The Net has argued, verifying that some users are minors necessarily means putting every user through an identity check because the system can't know who's underage without checking everyone. That's the quiet trade-off sitting inside nearly every child-safety proposal now moving through state legislatures and courts: protecting kids online, as currently conceived by regulators, increasingly means asking adults to prove who they are just to open an app.

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who is overseeing the underlying federal case, took the unusual step of empanelling an advisory jury to weigh in on specific factual questions even as settlement talks proceeded, which is a sign that courts are trying to build a durable evidentiary record regardless of how individual cases resolve. That record, which is an unsealed internal research, executive testimony, and coroners' findings cited in court filings  is exactly the kind of material state and federal lawmakers will cite for years as they draft the next generation of age-verification and social media laws.

Conclusion

The Meta settlement is unlikely to be the last of its kind. Thousands of similar lawsuits from families, school districts, and other states remain active, and the California bellwether trial's findings will likely shape settlement math for TikTok, YouTube, and Snap. Expect three parallel tracks to accelerate: state legislatures pushing app-store-level age verification; plaintiffs' lawyers using unsealed Meta documents as templates for the next wave of suits; and Meta itself continuing to invest in AI-based age detection partly to protect teens and partly to insulate itself from the next $18 billion bill. Whether that technology can be built without turning every internet user into someone who has to prove their age at the door is the legal and technological question that will define this fight for the next decade.

Sources

• Meta settles landmark state child harm claims for $18 billion – CNN Business
• Meta's $18B child-safety deal hinges on age-verification tech that doesn't work well – TechCrunch
• Meta to pay 47 states up to $17.1B in landmark child safety settlement – Stateline
• Meta's $18bn settlement: How social platforms will change for child users – Al Jazeera
• Meta to pay Texas $1 billion in child safety case – The Texas Tribune
• Meta Trial Opens as States Demand Age Verification – Reclaim The Net
• States' complaint against Meta (PDF) – Reclaim The Net document archive
• Jury finds Meta's platforms harmful to children in first wave of lawsuits – PBS NewsHour / AP
• Instagram's AI-based teen account detection – TechCrunch

‍