#FactCheck: AI-Generated Photo Shared to Claim Boycott of Hindu Sammelan

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

Introduction

This tale, the Toothbrush Hack, straddles the ordinary and the sophisticated; an unassuming household item became the tool for committing cyber crime. Herein lies the account of how three million electronic toothbrushes turned into the unwitting infantry in a cyber skirmish—a Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) assault that flirted with the thin line that bridges the real and the outlandish.

In January, within the  Swiss borders, a story began circulating—first reported by the Aargauer Zeitung, a Swiss German-language daily newspaper. A legion of cybercriminals, with honed digital acumen, had planted malware on some three million electric toothbrushes. These devices, mere slivers of plastic and circuitry, became agents of chaos, converging their electronic requests upon the servers of an undisclosed Swiss firm, hurling that digital domain into digital blackout for several hours and wreaking an economic turmoil calculated in seven-figure sums.

The entire Incident

It was claimed that three million electric toothbrushes were allegedly used for a distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack, first reported by the Aargauer Zeitung, a Swiss German-language daily newspaper. The article claimed that cybercriminals installed malware on the toothbrushes and used them to access a Swiss company's website, causing the site to go offline and causing significant financial loss. However, cybersecurity experts have questioned the veracity of the story, with some describing it as "total bollocks" and others pointing out that smart electric toothbrushes are connected to smartphones and tablets via Bluetooth, making it impossible for them to launch DDoS attacks over the web. Fortinet clarified that the topic of toothbrushes being used for DDoS attacks was presented as an illustration of a given type of attack and that no IoT botnets have been observed targeting toothbrushes or similar embedded devices.

The Tech Dilemma - IOT Hack

Imagine the juxtaposition of this narrative against our common expectations of technology: 'This example, which could have been from a cyber thriller, did indeed occur,' asserted the narratives that wafted through the press and social media. The story radiated outward with urgency, painting the image of IoT devices turned to evil tools of digital unrest. It was disseminated with such velocity that face value became an accepted currency amid news cycles. And yet, skepticism took root in the fertile minds of those who dwell in the domains of cyber guardianship.

Several cyber security and IOT experts, postulated that the information from Fortinet had been contorted by the wrench of misinterpretation. They and their ilk highlighted a critical flaw: smart electric toothbrushes are bound to their smartphone or tablet counterparts by the tethers of Bluetooth, not the internet, stripping them of any innate ability to conduct DDoS or any other type of cyber attack directly.

With this unraveling of an incident fit for our cyber age, we are presented with a sobering reminder of the threat spectrum that burgeons as the tendrils of the Internet of Things (IoT) insinuate themselves into our everyday fabrics. Innocuous devices, previously deemed immune to the internet's shadow, now stand revealed as potential conduits for cyber evil. The layers of impact are profound, touching the private spheres of individuals, the underpinning frameworks of national security, and the sinews that clutch at our economic realities. The viral incident was a misinformation. 

IOT Weakness

IoT devices bear inherent weaknesses for twin reasons: the oft-overlooked element of security and the stark absence of a means to enact those security measures. Ponder this problem Is there a pathway to traverse the security settings of an electric toothbrush? Or to install antivirus measures within the cooling confines of a refrigerator? The answers point to an unsettling simplicity—you cannot.

How to Protect 

Vigilance - What then might be the protocol to safeguard our increasingly digital space? It begins with vigilance, the cornerstone of digital self-defense. Ensure the automatic updating of all IoT devices when they beckon with the promise of a new security patch. 

Self Awareness - Avoid the temptation of public USB charging stations, which, while offering electronic succor to your devices, could also stand as the Trojan horses for digital pathogens. Be attuned to signs of unusual power depletion in your gadgets, for it may well serve as the harbinger of clandestine malware. Navigate the currents of public Wi-Fi with utmost care, as they are as fertile for data interception as they are convenient for your connectivity needs.

Use of Firewall - A firewall can prove stalwart against the predators of the internet interlopers. Your smart appliances, from the banality of a kitchen toaster to the novelty of an internet-enabled toilet, if shielded by this barrier, remain untouched, and by extension, uncompromised. And let us not dismiss this notion with frivolity, for the prospect of a malware-compromised toilet or any such smart device leaves a most distasteful specter.

Limit the use of IOT -  Additionally, and this is conveyed with the gravity warranted by our current digital era, resist the seduction of IoT devices whose utility does not outweigh their inherent risks. A smart television may indeed be vital for the streaming aficionado amongst us, yet can we genuinely assert the need for a connected laundry machine, an iron, or indeed, a toothbrush? Here, prudence is a virtue; exercise it with judicious restraint.

Conclusion 

As we step forward into an era where connectivity has shifted from a mere luxury to an omnipresent standard, we must adopt vigilance and digital hygiene practices with the same fervour as those for our corporal well-being. Let the toothbrush hack not simply be a tale of caution, consigned to the annals of internet folklore, but a fable that imbues us with the recognition of our role in maintaining discipline in a realm where even the most benign objects might be mustered into service by a cyberspace adversary.

References 

• https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/no-3-million-electric-toothbrushes-were-not-used-in-a-ddos-attack/ 
• https://www.zdnet.com/home-and-office/smart-home/3-million-smart-toothbrushes-were-not-used-in-a-ddos-attack-but-they-could-have-been/
• https://www.securityweek.com/3-million-toothbrushes-abused-for-ddos-attacks-real-or-not/

https://www.cxodigitalpulse.com/hackers-use-electric-toothbrushes-in-massive-cyber-attack-results-in-huge-financial-loss/

Executive Summary

‍
A collage of two images circulating on social media is falsely claiming that the street vendor who served jhalmuri to Prime Minister Narendra Modi during an election campaign in Jhargram was actually a personnel from the Special Protection Group (SPG). Research by the CyberPeace Research Wing found the claim to be false and misleading, indicating that it is being shared as part of election-related misinformation. The vendor and the SPG personnel seen in the viral collage are two different individuals.

‍

Claim

‍

An X (formerly Twitter) user, “@Jeetuburdak,” shared the viral collage on April 21, 2026, with the caption: “Another scam! The jhalmuri seller turned out to be an SPG commando.” The post quickly gained traction online.

‍

• https://x.com/Jeetuburdak/status/2046612977617637711
• https://perma.cc/JW8S-VA2J

‍

‍

‍

Fact Check

‍

A close examination of the two images used in the collage shows clear visual differences between the individuals. The person seen in SPG uniform does not match the street vendor who served food to the prime minister. Reverse image searches were conducted using multiple tools to trace the origin of the images. While no verifiable source was found linking the SPG personnel’s image to the vendor, several credible reports and videos featured the actual jhalmuri seller from the campaign event.

• https://x.com/ANI/status/2045859146508177911?s=20
• https://news24online.com/cities/kolkata/who-is-the-man-that-served-jhalmuri-to-pm-modi-know-his-daily-income-and-what-he-talked-about-with-pm/811123/

‍

‍

‍

‍

According to media reports, the prime minister briefly stopped at a roadside stall during the campaign in Jhargram and interacted with the vendor while enjoying jhalmuri. The vendor was later interviewed by multiple outlets, further confirming his identity as a local seller. Additionally, technical facial comparison analysis using online tools also indicated that the two individuals in the viral collage are not the same person.

‍

‍

Conclusion

‍

The claim that the jhalmuri vendor was an SPG commando is false and misleading. The viral collage shows two different individuals, and there is no evidence to support the allegation.

‍