#FactCheck-AI-Generated Video Falsely Shows Samay Raina Making a Joke on Rekha

As AI language models become more powerful, they are also becoming more prone to errors. One increasingly prominent issue is AI hallucinations, instances where models generate outputs that are factually incorrect, nonsensical, or entirely fabricated, yet present them with complete confidence. Recently, ChatGPT released two new models—o3 and o4-mini, which differ from earlier versions as they focus more on step-by-step reasoning rather than simple text prediction. With the growing reliance on chatbots and generative models for everything from news summaries to legal advice, this phenomenon poses a serious threat to public trust, information accuracy, and decision-making.

What Are AI Hallucinations?

AI hallucinations occur when a model invents facts, misattributes quotes, or cites nonexistent sources. This is not a bug but a side effect of how Large Language Models (LLMs) work, and it is only the probability that can be reduced, not their occurrence altogether. Trained on vast internet data, these models predict what word is likely to come next in a sequence. They have no true understanding of the world or facts, they simulate reasoning based on statistical patterns in text. What is alarming is that the newer and more advanced models are producing more hallucinations, not fewer. seemingly counterintuitive. This has been prevalent reasoning-based models, which generate answers step-by-step in a chain-of-thought style. While this can improve performance on complex tasks, it also opens more room for errors at each step, especially when no factual retrieval or grounding is involved.

As per reports shared on TechCrunch, it mentioned that when users asked AI models for short answers, hallucinations increased by up to 30%. And a study published in eWeek found that ChatGPT hallucinated in 40% of tests involving domain-specific queries, such as medical and legal questions. This was not, however, limited to this particular Large Language Model, but also similar ones like DeepSeek. Even more concerning are hallucinations in multimodal models like those used for deepfakes. Forbes reports that some of these models produce synthetic media that not only look real but are also capable of contributing to fabricated narratives, raising the stakes for the spread of misinformation during elections, crises, and other instances.

It is also notable that AI models are continually improving with each version, focusing on reducing hallucinations and enhancing accuracy. New features, such as providing source links and citations, are being implemented to increase transparency and reliability in responses.

The Misinformation Dilemma

The rise of AI-generated hallucinations exacerbates the already severe problem of online misinformation. Hallucinated content can quickly spread across social platforms, get scraped into training datasets, and re-emerge in new generations of models, creating a dangerous feedback loop. However, it helps that the developers are already aware of such instances and are actively charting out ways in which we can reduce the probability of this error. Some of them are:

1. Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG): Instead of relying purely on a model’s internal knowledge, RAG allows the model to “look up” information from external databases or trusted sources during the generation process. This can significantly reduce hallucination rates by anchoring responses in verifiable data.
2. Use of smaller, more specialised language models: Lightweight models fine-tuned on specific domains, such as medical records or legal texts. They tend to hallucinate less because their scope is limited and better curated.

Furthermore, transparency mechanisms such as source citation, model disclaimers, and user feedback loops can help mitigate the impact of hallucinations. For instance, when a model generates a response, linking back to its source allows users to verify the claims made.

Conclusion

AI hallucinations are an intrinsic part of how generative models function today, and such a side-effect would continue to occur until foundational changes are made in how models are trained and deployed. For the time being, developers, companies, and users must approach AI-generated content with caution. LLMs are, fundamentally, word predictors, brilliant but fallible. Recognising their limitations is the first step in navigating the misinformation dilemma they pose.

References

• https://www.eweek.com/news/ai-hallucinations-increase/
• https://www.resilience.org/stories/2025-05-11/better-ai-has-more-hallucinations/ 
• https://www.ekathimerini.com/nytimes/1269076/ai-is-getting-more-powerful-but-its-hallucinations-are-getting-worse/ 
• https://techcrunch.com/2025/05/08/asking-chatbots-for-short-answers-can-increase-hallucinations-study-finds/ 
• https://en.as.com/latest_news/is-chatgpt-having-robot-dreams-ai-is-hallucinating-and-producing-incorrect-information-and-experts-dont-know-why-n/
• https://www.newscientist.com/article/2479545-ai-hallucinations-are-getting-worse-and-theyre-here-to-stay/
• https://www.forbes.com/sites/conormurray/2025/05/06/why-ai-hallucinations-are-worse-than-ever/ 
• https://towardsdatascience.com/how-i-deal-with-hallucinations-at-an-ai-startup-9fc4121295cc/ 
• https://www.informationweek.com/machine-learning-ai/getting-a-handle-on-ai-hallucinations 

‍

‍Introduction 

The enactment of the Online Gaming (Promotion and Regulation) Act, 2025 has a significant impact, resulting in considerable changes to the structure of the Indian gaming industry. The ban on Real-Money Games (RMG), including fantasy sports, rummy, and poker, aims to curb addiction, illegal betting and most importantly, financial exploitation.

However, this decision sent ripples throughout the industry, resulting in players, companies and their investors re-strategising their plans to move forward. This approach, however, is a sharp contrast to how other nations, including the UK, Singapore and others, regulate online gaming. This, as a result, has also raised doubts about the ban and calls into question whether this is the right move.

‍

Industry in Flux - The resultant Fallout

‍

• MPL’s Layoffs: The Mobile Premiere League has so far laid off nearly 60 per cent of its workforce, with the CEO of the company openly admitting that the company is no longer able to make money in India.
• Dream11’s Lost Revenue: Having seen a position of being a market leader, the company has now witnessed its 95 per cent revenue wiped out, resulting in raised alarms among investors.
• A23’s Legal Move: The company chose to move the Karnataka High Court under the argument that the ban also ends up unfairly criminalising skill-based games that were earlier classified differently from gambling by the courts.

‍

The new face of eSports: With RMGs outlawed, the focus is now on esports, including casual mobile gaming, console/PC gaming, and creating new opportunities and also leaving a void for RMG revenue companies.

‍

Regulations Around the World - & India

‍

India has adopted a prohibition model, whereas many other countries have developed regulatory frameworks that allow sectoral expansion under monitoring.

‍

United Kingdom:

• Online gaming is regulated by the UK Gambling Commission.
• RMGs are legal but subject to strict licensing, age verification and advertising rules.
• Self-exclusion schemes are a must, offered by operators along with tools to prevent gambling addictions.

‍

United States

• State-driven regulations that vary from state to state.
• States including Nevada and New Jersey allow casinos both online and offline, while other states prohibit them completely.
• Regulation for skill-based fantasy games is fragmented but generally legal.

‍

China

• Great focus on controlling and restricting gaming addictions among minors.
• Time limits are enforced for players under 18 (usually as little as 3 hours per week).
• Gambling has been deemed illegal; however, esports and casual gaming operate within China’s regulated gaming ecosystem, subject to certain compliance.

‍

Singapore

• The Remote Gambling Act regulates chance-based games, while other eSports and skill-based games operate out of its jurisdiction and are regulated separately.
• Online gambling isn't completely banned, but is operated under restrictions.
• Only Licensed operators under strict controls are allowed by the government to operate to avoid and prevent black-market alternatives.

‍

Australia

• Regulates under the Interactive Gambling Act.
• Sports betting and certain licensed operators are allowed, while most of the other online gambling services are prohibited.
• Restrictions on advertising and real-time interventions allow emphasis on harm minimisation.

‍

India’s Approach  - Comparison

The Online Gaming (Promotion and Regulation) Act, 2025 introduces a prohibition model for real money games. This differs from jurisdictions such as the UK and US, which have implemented regulatory frameworks to oversee the sector. In India, earlier legal interpretations distinguished between games of skill and games of chance. The new legislation provides a single treatment for both categories, which marks a departure from previous judicial pronouncements. 

‍

Conclusion

At present, India’s gaming sector is navigating layoffs, court cases, and a pivot towards esports post the RMG ban. Keeping in mind that the intent of said ban is the protection of citizens, the industry also argues that regulation, instead of prohibition, offers a sustainable approach to the issues. On the other hand, on the global scale, most nations prefer controlled and licensed models that ensure consumer safety and work on preserving both jobs and revenues. However, India’s step is diverging from such a model. The lack of safeguards and engagement in the real money gaming industry led to a prohibition model, underscoring that in sensitive digital sectors, early regulatory alignment is essential.

‍

References

• India online gaming ban: Global rules & regulation bill 2025
• Level up or game over? Decoding India’s gaming industry post RMG ban
• MPL lays off 350 employees after GST rules, RMG crackdown
• India’s Dream11 hit by online gaming ban, revenue slumps
• Online gaming ban: A23 moves Karnataka HC against government decision
• UK Gambling Commission – Licensing and Regulations
• Fantasy Sports & Gambling Law – State by State
• China’s gaming restrictions for minors
• Singapore Remote Gambling Act – Ministry of Home Affairs
• Australian Communications and Media Authority – Interactive Gambling Act
  
  

‍

Introduction

‍

Over the last few years, several public data breaches in Venezuela have revealed a lack of cohesion and progress in its data privacy system and left many people susceptible to fraud, identity theft and long-term harm via the internet. It is clear from these data breaches that when organizations fail to adequately protect their data, both through cybersecurity failures and weak legal protections, they can lead to problems throughout an entire system through which all individuals in the system could potentially suffer.

Among the more notable breaches are the Movistar Venezuela data breach from 2025 and the Cashea App data leak from earlier this year. Each of these examples demonstrates to some extent how the absence of an adequate privacy regulatory scheme can worsen the results of a data breach.

‍

The Movistar Breach: A Regulatory Warning (2025)

‍

Venezuelan digital rights group VE Sin Filtro published a report late in April 2025, which found a database revealed to have been opened onto the internet containing personal information belonging to over 3.2 million Movistar customers. The initial breach contained personal, and confidential, data of Venezuelan citizens such as national identification numbers, full names, city of residence, and phone numbers which could have been exploited to commit identity theft, SIM-swap fraud, and targeted scams.

One significant issue with this situation was that Movistar failed to disclose the breach publicly or contact impacted customers at the time of the disclosure. As a result, there appears to be a significant gap in Sanctions / Other Means of Enforcing Security Countermeasures Laws. Since there are numerous countries that enforce GDPR-style regulations and as such, this matter should lead to a complete investigation and possible fines against those responsible but in Venezuela there is still a lack of accountability.

‍

Cashea App Leak: A 2026 Data Shock

‍

A second alleged data breach came to light in February of 2026. It involved a Venezuelan buy-now-pay-later (BNPL) fintech called Cashea App, which is typically heavily utilized domestically. Reports have circulated that threat actors have been offering a database, believed to hold more than 79 million transaction records. This is more than double the size and sensitivity of the data involved in the Movistar Breach.

According to reports, the leaked data included:

1. Bank account details and payment methods
2. Merchant profiles and internal business identifiers
3. Detailed transaction histories with names, national ID numbers, timestamps, and installment data

This level of exposure goes far beyond basic identifiers. Financial transaction histories combined with personal identifiers enable sophisticated fraud, targeted social engineering, and long-term misuse of financial identities. As with the Movistar breach, no official acknowledgment or notification was issued by Cashea at the time of reporting, again underscoring Venezuela’s weak enforcement environment.

‍

Why These Breaches Matter: The Legal Dimension

‍

The incidents show us that there is a bigger problem with the way Venezuela has set up its framework for protecting data. For instance, the Venezuelan Constitution recognises the principles of data protection and privacy; however, these rights only exist in a theoretical manner; they lack implementing legislation, procedural clarity, and institutional enforcement.

‍

Constitutional Basis of Data Protection

‍

The Supreme Tribunal of Justice (TSJ) stated the core principles for protecting data are found in the Venezuelan Constitution. After the TSJ issued its 2011 ruling, Article 28 of the Venezuelan Constitution gives individuals the right to know what data the state has about them, how the state uses that data, and to correct or delete any harmful data. Article 60 of the Venezuelan Constitution protects individuals' privacy and restricts excessive data collection by the state.

The Constitutional Chamber also put into place additional guiding principles for how to protect personal data, including:

1. The data subject must give prior informed and revocable consent.
2. The purpose for which the data is collected must be specified and only the minimum amount of information necessary can be collected.
3. The data collected must be accurate and of good quality.
4. There are confidentiality obligations for third parties regarding the use of the data.
5. It is the government's responsibility to put into place procedures and mechanisms to monitor compliance with the data protection laws.
6. There are civil, criminal and administrative liabilities for individuals and legal entities that violate the data protection laws.

But, in a civil law country, when courts make rulings, they usually are persuasive only as opposed to being legally binding, and even constitutional rulings cannot be implemented until enabling legislation is passed.

‍

Absence of a Comprehensive Data Protection Law

‍

In contrast to the European Union's GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation), the United States' sectoral approach, and emerging Latin American data protection systems such as the ones in Brazil, Chile and Colombia, Venezuela has no independent data protection law. This lack of law leads to numerous types of uncertainty in the realm of data protection laws:

1. No defined data controller or processor obligations
2. No standardized lawful bases for processing
3. No clear breach notification timelines
4. No independent data protection authority
5. No procedural pathway for individuals to seek redress

As a result, data protection in Venezuela is not treated as an independent legal discipline but instead becomes derivative, arising incidentally within constitutional litigation or sector-specific disputes.

‍

Regulatory Fragmentation and Institutional Weakness

‍

Due to the TSJ decisions made in 2011, there has been a lack of regulatory action taken in a systematic fashion and instead most actions have been done on a case by case basis as valid incidents arise. The National Cybersecurity Council was established in 2024; however, its function is to support the establishment of cybersecurity infrastructure and has no defined powers regarding the enforcement of privacy.

This creates a fragmented institutional landscape where:

1. Authorities lack clear jurisdiction over privacy violations
2. Companies face minimal compliance guidance
3. Individuals struggle to understand or enforce their rights

The Movistar and Cashea incidents highlight how this fragmentation translates into practical impunity following major data exposures.

‍

What’s Next? A Legal Opportunity for Reform

‍

The repercussions of insufficient safeguards for data protection extend past the damage incurred to a person's privacy:

1. Loss of trust in both financial and digital services
2. Heightened likelihood of financial fraud and crime
3. Lack of willingness from foreign companies to conduct business with Venezuela’s platforms.
4. Long-term negative impact on the reputation of domestic companies.
5. Possible inability to access cross-border transfer of data due to other jurisdictions’ decisions to restrict transfers into jurisdictions without cutting-edge enforcement of protections for privacy.

In a digital economy that increasingly requires robust data protection to function successfully, a lack of action to create strong protections will cause a significant economic impact.

‍

Conclusion

‍

Major data breaches such as the ones at Movistar in 2025 and Cashea App in 2026 show that constitutional privacy rights alone are insufficient without enforceable legal framework. Privacy laws must move from being just a principle to being a law that has institutions, procedures, and accountability to make sure the privacy of the users is protected.

Now with the global digital economy being so interconnected, not having regulations creates openings for vulnerabilities for people. If Venezuela hopes to protect their citizens, create an innovation-friendly environment, and compete in the global market, they must implement comprehensive data privacy reforms as soon as possible.

‍

REFERENCES 

‍

1. https://iapp.org/news/a/venezuela-data-breach-highlights-scattered-privacy-regulation
2. https://www.apolocybersecurity.com/en/blog-posts/ciberataque-a-movistar-que-ha-pasado-a-quien-afecta-y-como-proteger-tus-datos
3. https://darknetsearch.com/knowledge/news/en/cashea-app-data-leak-79m-records-exposed-in-venezuela/
4. https://www.binance.com/en-IN/square/post/294369884695410

‍