#FactCheck-AI-Generated Video Falsely Shows Neymar and Messi Facing Off in FIFA World Cup 2026

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 U.S. Department of Justice recently released nearly three million pages of documents, along with thousands of videos and photographs, related to its research into convicted offender Jeffrey Epstein. Meanwhile, a video showing a massive crowd protesting on a street is going viral on social media The video, which had earlier circulated with false claims linking it to anti-government protests in Iran, is now being shared by several users who claim that the protest took place in the United States after the release of the Epstein files. Research by CyberPeace found the viral claim to be false. The video being linked to protests in the United States following the release of the Epstein files is not real and was generated using artificial intelligence (AI).

‍

Claim:

‍

An Instagram user uploaded the viral video on February 9, 2026, with the caption: “After Epstein files released in America. All eyes on America.”

‍

• https://www.instagram.com/reel/DUjLe-XE5lA
• https://ghostarchive.org/archive/tkP6W

‍

‍

Fact Check:

‍

To verify the claim, we first conducted a reverse search of the viral video using Google Lens. The same video was found posted on January 10, 2026, by an Instagram account named “elnaz555,” where it was shared in the context of recent protests in Iran. The post also mentioned that the video was created using AI.

‍

‍

Based on this lead, we further analyzed a higher-quality version of the viral video using Hive Moderation, a tool used to detect AI-generated images and videos. The analysis indicated a 97.9% probability that the video was generated using artificial intelligence. The research clearly shows that the video is not authentic and has been falsely linked to protests in the United States after the release of the Epstein files.

‍

‍

Conclusion:

‍

The claim circulating on social media is false. The viral video allegedly showing protests in the United States following the release of the Epstein files is AI-generated and not related to any real event.

‍

Introduction

Privacy has become a concern for netizens and social media companies have access to a user’s data and the ability to use the said data as they see fit. Meta’s business model, where they rely heavily on collecting and processing user data to deliver targeted advertising, has been under scrutiny. The conflict between Meta and the EU traces back to the enactment of GDPR in 2018. Meta is facing numerous fines for not following through with the regulation and mainly failing to obtain explicit consent for data processing under Chapter 2, Article 7 of the GDPR. ePrivacy Regulation, which focuses on digital communication and digital data privacy, is the next step in the EU’s arsenal to protect user privacy and will target the cookie policies and tracking tech crucial to Meta's ad-targeting mechanism. Meta’s core revenue stream is sourced from targeted advertising which requires vast amounts of data for the creation of a personalised experience and is scrutinised by the EU. 

Pay for Privacy Model and its Implications with Critical Analysis

Meta came up with a solution to deal with the privacy issue - ‘Pay or Consent,’ a model that allows users to opt out of data-driven advertising by paying a subscription fee. The platform would offer users a choice between free, ad-supported services and a paid privacy-enhanced experience which aligns with the GDPR and potentially reduces regulatory pressure on Meta. 

Meta presently needs to assess the economic feasibility of this model and come up with answers for how much a user would be willing to pay for the privacy offered and shift Meta’s monetisation from ad-driven profits to subscription revenues. This would have a direct impact on Meta’s advertisers who use Meta as a platform for detailed user data for targeted advertising, and would potentially decrease ad revenue and innovate other monetisation strategies.

For the users, increased privacy and greater control of data aligning with global privacy concerns would be a potential outcome. While users will undoubtedly appreciate the option to avoid tracking, the suggestion does beg the question that the need to pay might become a barrier. This could possibly divide users between cost-conscious and privacy-conscious segments. Setting up a reasonable price point is necessary for widespread adoption of the model.

For the regulators and the industry, a new precedent would be set in the tech industry and could influence other companies’ approaches to data privacy. Regulators might welcome this move and encourage further innovation in privacy-respecting business models. 

The affordability and fairness of the ‘pay or consent’ model could create digital inequality if privacy comes at a digital cost or even more so as a luxury. The subscription model would also need clarifications as to what data would be collected and how it would be used for non-advertising purposes. In terms of market competition, competitors might use and capitalise on Meta’s subscription model by offering free services with privacy guarantees which could further pressure Meta to refine its offerings to stay competitive. According to the EU, the model needs to provide a third way for users who have ads but are a result of non-personalisation advertising.

Meta has further expressed a willingness to explore various models to address regulatory concerns and enhance user privacy. Their recent actions in the form of pilot programs for testing the pay-for-privacy model is one example. Meta is actively engaging with EU regulators to find mutually acceptable solutions and to demonstrate its commitment to compliance while advocating for business models that sustain innovation. Meta executives have emphasised the importance of user choice and transparency in their future business strategies.

Future Impact Outlook

• The Meta-EU tussle over privacy is a manifestation of broader debates about data protection and business models in the digital age. 
• The EU's stance on Meta’s ‘pay or consent’ model and any new regulatory measures will shape the future landscape of digital privacy, leading to other jurisdictions taking cues and potentially leading to global shifts in privacy regulations. 
• Meta may need to iterate on its approach based on consumer preferences and concerns. Competitors and tech giants will closely monitor Meta’s strategies, possibly adopting similar models or innovating new solutions. And the overall approach to privacy could evolve to prioritise user control and transparency.

Conclusion

Consent is the cornerstone in matters of privacy and sidestepping it violates the rights of users. The manner in which tech companies foster a culture of consent is of paramount importance in today's digital landscape. As the exploration by Meta in the ‘pay or consent’ model takes place, it faces both opportunities and challenges in balancing user privacy with business sustainability. This situation serves as a critical test case for the tech industry, highlighting the need for innovative solutions that respect privacy while fostering growth with the specificity of dealing with data protection laws worldwide, starting with India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act, of 2023.

Reference:

• https://ciso.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/grc/eu-tells-meta-to-address-consumer-fears-over-pay-for-privacy/111946106 
• https://www.wired.com/story/metas-pay-for-privacy-model-is-illegal-says-eu/ 
• https://edri.org/our-work/privacy-is-not-for-sale-meta-must-stop-charging-for-peoples-right-to-privacy/ 
• https://fortune.com/2024/04/17/meta-pay-for-privacy-rejected-edpb-eu-gdpr-schrems/ 

‍