#FactCheck: Fake AI Video Falsely Shows Rohit Sharma Seeking Support to Play Next World Cup
Executive Summary
A video of Indian cricketer Rohit Sharma is being widely shared on social media, purportedly showing him saying, “If you want me to play in the next World Cup and you are with me, then share and like this video.” However, CyberPeace Research Wing found the viral claim to be false. Our research found that the viral video is not authentic but AI-generated and is being circulated with a misleading claim.
Claim:
A Facebook user shared the viral video on September 28 with the caption, “If you want me to play in the next World Cup and you are with me, then share and like this video.” The post link, archived link and screenshot are provided below.
https://www.facebook.com/reel/27349791221308658
Fact check
To verify the viral claim, we conducted a Google search using relevant keywords. During the search, we did not find any credible media reports corroborating the claim. As part of our research, we scanned the viral video using the AI detection tool ISFAKEAI. According to the tool’s results, the video was 97 per cent AI-generated.
We further analysed the video using Hive Detect, which found that the speech in the viral video was 99 per cent AI-generated.
Conclusion:
Our research found that the viral video is not authentic but AI-generated. The video is being circulated on social media with a misleading claim that it shows an aeroplane being affected by the alleged ‘Arnab’ cyclone in Ahmedabad.
Related Blogs
Executive Summary:
A video is going viral on social media claiming to show family members mourning the death of Iddo Netanyahu, brother of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. However, an research by the CyberPeace found that the claim being shared with the video is false. The video has been available on the internet since 2024. According to available information, it shows the funeral of an Israeli soldier who was killed in an attack in the Jabalia area of northern Gaza.Moreover, no credible news reports were found confirming the death of Iddo Netanyahu.
Claim:
An Instagram user shared the viral video with an English caption stating, “Family members are crying after the death of Iddo Netanyahu was confirmed.”
Fact Check:
During the investigation, we found the original video on an X (formerly Twitter) account named Warfare Analysis. The video was posted on October 12, 2024, confirming that it predates the recent Iran-Israel conflict. Notably, the “Warfare Analysis” logo is also visible in the viral video. According to the caption, the footage shows the funeral of Israeli soldier Netanel Hershkovit, who was killed on October 11, 2024, in an attack by Al-Qassam in Jabalia, northern Gaza.
A report published by VIN News on October 12, 2024, also covered the funeral of Netanel Hershkovit and included statements from his family members.
Conclusion:
Our research found that the claim shared with the video is false. The video has been online since 2024 and shows the funeral of an Israeli soldier killed in northern Gaza. Additionally, no credible reports confirm the death of Iddo Netanyahu.
.webp)
Introduction
The ongoing armed conflict between Israel and Hamas/ Palestine is in the news all across the world. The latest conflict was triggered by unprecedented attacks against Israel by Hamas militants on October 7, killing thousands of people. Israel has launched a massive counter-offensive against the Islamic militant group. Amid the war, the bad information and propaganda spreading on various social media platforms, tech researchers have detected a network of 67 accounts that posted false content about the war and received millions of views. The ‘European Commission’ has sent a letter to Elon Musk, directing them to remove illegal content and disinformation; otherwise, penalties can be imposed. The European Commission has formally requested information from several social media giants on their handling of content related to the Israel-Hamas war. This widespread disinformation impacts and triggers the nature of war and also impacts the world and affects the goodwill of the citizens. The bad group, in this way, weaponise the information and fuels online hate activity, terrorism and extremism, flooding political polarisation with hateful content on social media. Online misinformation about the war is inciting extremism, violence, hate and different propaganda-based ideologies. The online information environment surrounding this conflict is being flooded with disinformation and misinformation, which amplifies the nature of war and too many fake narratives and videos are flooded on social media platforms.
Response of social media platforms
As there is a proliferation of online misinformation and violent content surrounding the war, It imposes a question on social media companies in terms of content moderation and other policy shifts. It is notable that Instagram, Facebook and X(Formerly Twitter) all have certain features in place giving users the ability to decide what content they want to view. They also allow for limiting the potentially sensitive content from being displayed in search results.
The experts say that It is of paramount importance to get a sort of control in this regard and define what is permissible online and what is not, Hence, what is required is expertise to determine the situation, and most importantly, It requires robust content moderation policies.
During wartime, people who are aggrieved or provoked are often targeted by this internet disinformation that blends ideological beliefs and spreads conspiracy theories and hatred. This is not a new phenomenon, it is often observed that disinformation-spreading groups emerged and became active during such war and emergency times and spread disinformation and propaganda-based ideologies and influence the society at large by misrepresenting the facts and planted stories. Social media has made it easier to post user-generated content without properly moderating it. However, it is a shared responsibility of tech companies, users, government guidelines and policies to collectively define and follow certain mechanisms to fight against disinformation and misinformation.
Digital Services Act (DSA)
The newly enacted EU law, i.e. Digital Services Act, pushes various larger online platforms to prevent posts containing illegal content and also puts limits on targeted advertising. DSA enables to challenge the of illegal online content and also poses requirements to prevent misinformation and disinformation and ensure more transparency over what the users see on the platforms. Rules under the DSA cover everything from content moderation & user privacy to transparency in operations. DSA is a landmark EU legislation moderating online platforms. Large tech platforms are now subject to content-related regulation under this new EU law ‘The Digital Services Act’, which also requires them to prevent the spread of misinformation and disinformation and overall ensure a safer online environment.
Indian Scenario
The Indian government introduced the Intermediary Guidelines (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, updated in 2023 which talks about the establishment of a "fact check unit" to identify false or misleading online content. Digital Personal Data Protection, 2023 has also been enacted which aims to protect personal data. The upcoming Digital India bill is also proposed to be tabled in the parliament, this act will replace the current Information & Technology Act, of 2000. The upcoming Digital India bill can be seen as future-ready legislation to strengthen India’s current cybersecurity posture. It will comprehensively deal with the aspects of ensuring privacy, data protection, and fighting growing cyber crimes in the evolving digital landscape and ensuring a safe digital environment. Certain other entities including civil societies are also actively engaged in fighting misinformation and spreading awareness for safe and responsible use of the Internet.
Conclusion:
The widespread disinformation and misinformation content amid the Israel-Hamas war showcases how user-generated content on social media shows you the illusion of reality. There is widespread misinformation, misleading content or posts on social media platforms, and misuse of new advanced AI technologies that even make it easier for bad actors to create synthetic media content. It is also notable that social media has connected us like never before. Social media is a great platform with billions of active social media users around the globe, it offers various conveniences and opportunities to individuals and businesses. It is just certain aspects that require the attention of all of us to prevent the bad use of social media. The social media platforms and regulatory authorities need to be vigilant and active in clearly defining and improving the policies for content regulation and safe and responsible use of social media which can effectively combat and curtail the bad actors from misusing social media for their bad motives. As a user, it's the responsibility of users to exercise certain duties and promote responsible use of social media. With the increasing penetration of social media and the internet, misinformation is rampant all across the world and remains a global issue which needs to be addressed properly by implementing strict policies and adopting best practices to fight the misinformation. Users are encouraged to flag and report misinformative or misleading content on social media and should always verify it from authentic sources. Hence creating a safer Internet environment for everyone.
References:
- https://abcnews.go.com/US/experts-fear-hate-extremism-social-media-israel-hamas-war/story?id=104221215
- https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/14/tech/social-media-misinformation-israel-hamas/index.html
- https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/13/business/israel-hamas-misinformation-social-media-x.html
- https://www.africanews.com/2023/10/24/fact-check-misinformation-about-the-israel-hamas-war-is-flooding-social-media-here-are-the//
- https://www.theverge.com/23845672/eu-digital-services-act-explained
Introduction
How Generative Artificial Intelligence, or GenAI, is changing the employee workday is no longer limited to writing emails or debugging code, but now also includes analysing contracts, generating reports, and much more. The use of AI tools in everyday work has become commonplace, but the speed at which companies have adopted these technologies has created a new kind of risk. Unlike threats that come from an outside attacker, Shadow AI is created inside an organisation by a legitimate employee who uses unapproved AI tools to make their work more efficient and productive. In many cases, the employee is unaware of the potential security, data privacy, and compliance risks involved in using such tools to perform their job duties.
What Is Shadow AI?
Shadow AI is when individuals use AI tools at work that aren’t provided by the company, like tools or other software programs, without the knowledge or permission of the employer. Examples of shadow AI include:
- Using personal ChatGPT or other chatbot accounts to complete tasks at the office
- Uploading business-related documents to online AI technologies for analysis or summarisation.
- Copying proprietary source code into an online AI model for debugging
- Installing browser extensions and add-ons that are not approved by IT or Security personnel.
How Shadow AI Is Harmful
1. Uncontrolled Data Exposure
When employees access or input information into their user-created AI, it becomes outside the controls of the company, such as both employee personal information and any third-party personal information, private company information (such as source code or contracts), and company internal strategies. After a user enters data into their user-created AIs, the company loses all ability to monitor how that data is stored, processed, or maintained. A data leak situation exists without a malicious cyberattack. The biggest risk of a data leak is not maliciousness but rather the loss of control and governance over sensitive data.
2. Regulatory and Legal Non-Compliance
Data protection laws like GDPR, India’s Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, HIPAA, and other relevant sectoral laws require businesses to process data in accordance with the law, to minimise the amount of data they use, and to be accountable for their actions. Shadow AI often results in the unlawful use of personal data due to a lack of a legal basis for the processing, unauthorised cross-border data transfers, and not having appropriate contractual protections in place with their AI service providers. Regulators do not see the convenience of employees as an excuse for not complying with the law, and therefore, the organisation is ultimately responsible for any violations that occur.
3. Loss of Intellectual Property
Employees frequently use AI tools to speed up tasks involving proprietary information—debugging code, reviewing contracts, or summarising internal research. When done using unapproved AI platforms, this can expose trade secrets and intellectual property, eroding competitive advantage and creating long-term business risk.
Real-Life Example: Samsung’s ChatGPT Data Leak
In 2023, a case study exemplifying the Shadow AI risk occurred when Samsung Electronics placed a temporary ban on employee access to ChatGPT and other AI tools after reports from engineers revealed they were using ChatGPT to create debugging processes for internal source code and to summarise meeting notes. Consequently, confidential source code related to semiconductors was inadvertently uploaded onto a public AI platform. While there were no known incursions into the company’s system due to this incident, Samsung faced a significant challenge: once sensitive information is input into a public AI tool, it exists on external servers that are outside of the company’s purview or control.
As a result of this incident, Samsung restricted employee use of ChatGPT on corporate devices, issued a series of internal communications prohibiting the sharing of corporate data with public AI tools, and increased the urgency of their discussions regarding the adoption of secure, enterprise-level AI (artificial intelligence) solutions.
What Organisations Are Doing Today
Many organisations respond to Shadow AI risk by:
- Blocking access at the network level
- Circulating warning emails or policies
While these actions may reduce immediate exposure, they fail to address the root cause: employees still need AI to perform their jobs efficiently. As a result, bans often push AI usage underground, increasing Shadow AI rather than eliminating it.
Why Blocking AI Does Not Work—Governance Does
History has demonstrated that prohibition does not work - we see this when trying to block access to cloud storage, instant messaging and collaboration tools. Employees are forced to use personal devices and/or accounts when their employers block AI, which means employers do not have real-time visibility into how their employees are using these technologies, and creates friction with the security and compliance team as they try to enforce the types of tools their employees can use. Prohibiting AI adoption will not stop it from being adopted; it will just create a challenge for employers regarding how safe and responsible it is. The challenge for effective organisations is therefore to shift from denial and develop governance-first AI strategies aimed at controlling data usage, protection and security, rather than merely restricting access to a list of specific tools.
Shadow AI: A Silent Legal Liability Under the GDPR
Shadow AI isn't a problem for the Information Technology Department; it is a failure of Governance, Compliance and Law. By using AI tools that have not been approved as a result, the organisation processes personal data without a lawful basis (Article 6 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)), repurposes data for use beyond its original intent and in breach of the Purpose Limitation (Article 5(1)(b)), and routinely exceeds necessity and in breach of Data Minimisation (Article 5(1)(c)). The outcome of these actions is the use of tools that involve International Data Transfers Without Authorisation and are therefore in breach of Chapter V, and violate Article 32 because there are no enforceable safeguards in place. Most significantly, the failure to demonstrate Oversight, Logging and Control under Articles 5(2) and 24 constitutes a failure in Accountability. Therefore, from a Regulatory perspective, Shadow AI is not accidental and is not defensible.
The Right Solution: Secure and Governed AI Adoption
1. Provide Approved AI Tools
Employers have an obligation to supply business-approved AI technology for helping workers to be productive while maintaining maximum protections, like storing data separately and not using employees' data for training a model; defining how long data is kept, and the rules around deleting that data. When employees are provided with verified and secure AI options that align with their work processes, they will rely significantly less on Shadow AI.
2. Enforce Zero-Trust Data Access
The governance of AI systems must follow the principles of "zero trust," granting access to data only through the principle of "least privilege," which means that data access will only be allowed by the system user, and providing continuous verification of user-identity and context; this supports and helps establish context-aware controls to monitor and track all user activities, which will be especially important as agent-like AI systems become increasingly autonomous and are capable of operating at machine-speed where even small errors in configuration, will result in rapid and large expose to data.
3. Apply DLP and Audit Logging
It is important to have robust data loss prevention measures in place to protect sensitive data that is sent outside an organisation. The first end user or machine that accesses the data should be detailed in a comprehensive audit log that indicates when and how the data is accessed. In combination with other controls, these measures create accountability, comply with regulations, and assist with appropriately detecting and responding to incidents.
4. Maintain Visibility Across AI, Cloud, and SaaS
Security teams need unified visibility across AI tools, personal cloud applications, and SaaS platforms. Risks move across systems, and controls must follow the data wherever it flows.
Conclusion
This new threat exposes an organisation to the risk of data loss through leaks, regulatory fines, liability for the loss of intellectual property, and reputational damage, all of which can occur without any intent to cause harm. The way forward is not to block AI, but to adopt a clear framework built on governance, visibility, and secure enablement. This approach allows organisations to use AI with confidence, while ensuring trust, accountability, and effective oversight to protect data and support AI in reaching its full transformative potential. AI use is encouraged, but it must be done responsibly, ethically, and securely.
References
- https://bronson.ai/resources/shadow-ai/
- https://www.varonis.com/blog/shadow-ai
- https://www.waymakeros.com/learn/gdpr-hipaa-shadow-ai-compliance-nightmare
- https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2023/05/02/samsung-bans-chatgpt-and-other-chatbots-for-employees-after-sensitive-code-leak/
- https://www.usatoday.com/story/special/contributor-content/2025/05/23/shadow-ai-the-hidden-risk-in-todays-workplace/83822081007
