#FactCheck: Fake Claim on Delhi Authority Culling Dogs After Supreme Court Stray Dog Ban Directive 11 Aug 2025

Introduction

The G7 nations, a group of the most powerful economies, have recently turned their attention to the critical issue of cybercrimes and (AI) Artificial Intelligence. G7 summit has provided an essential platform for discussing the threats and crimes occurring from AI and lack of cybersecurity. These nations have united to share their expertise, resources, diplomatic efforts and strategies to fight against cybercrimes. In this blog, we shall investigate the recent development and initiatives undertaken by G7 nations, exploring their joint efforts to combat cybercrime and navigate the evolving landscape of artificial intelligence. We shall also explore the new and emerging trends in cybersecurity, providing insights into ongoing challenges and innovative approaches adopted by the G7 nations and the wider international community.

G7 Nations and AI

Each of these nations have launched cooperative efforts and measures to combat cybercrime successfully. They intend to increase their collective capacities in detecting, preventing, and responding to cyber assaults by exchanging intelligence, best practices, and experience. G7 nations are attempting to develop a strong cybersecurity architecture capable of countering increasingly complex cyber-attacks through information-sharing platforms, collaborative training programs, and joint exercises.

The G7 Summit provided an important forum for in-depth debates on the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in cybersecurity. Recognising AI’s transformational potential, the G7 nations have participated in extensive discussions to investigate its advantages and address the related concerns, guaranteeing responsible research and use. The nation also recognises the ethical, legal, and security considerations of deploying AI cybersecurity.

Worldwide Rise of Ransomware

High-profile ransomware attacks have drawn global attention, emphasising the need to combat this expanding threat. These attacks have harmed organisations of all sizes and industries, leading to data breaches, operational outages, and, in some circumstances, the loss of sensitive information. The implications of such assaults go beyond financial loss, frequently resulting in reputational harm, legal penalties, and service delays that affect consumers, clients, and the public. The increase in high-profile ransomware incidents has garnered attention worldwide, Cybercriminals have adopted a multi-faceted approach to ransomware attacks, combining techniques such as phishing, exploit kits, and supply chain Using spear-phishing, exploit kits, and supply chain hacks to obtain unauthorised access to networks and spread the ransomware. This degree of expertise and flexibility presents a substantial challenge to organisations attempting to protect against such attacks.

Focusing On AI and Upcoming Threats

During the G7 summit, one of the key topics for discussion on the role of AI (Artificial Intelligence) in shaping the future, Leaders and policymakers discuss the benefits and dangers of AI adoption in cybersecurity. Recognising AI’s revolutionary capacity, they investigate its potential to improve defence capabilities, predict future threats, and secure vital infrastructure. Furthermore, the G7 countries emphasise the necessity of international collaboration in reaping the advantages of AI while reducing the hazards. They recognise that cyber dangers transcend national borders and must be combated together. Collaboration in areas such as exchanging threat intelligence, developing shared standards, and promoting best practices is emphasised to boost global cybersecurity defences. The G7 conference hopes to set a global agenda that encourages responsible AI research and deployment by emphasising the role of AI in cybersecurity. The summit’s sessions present a path for maximising AI’s promise while tackling the problems and dangers connected with its implementation.

As the G7 countries traverse the complicated convergence of AI and cybersecurity, their emphasis on collaboration, responsible practices, and innovation lays the groundwork for international collaboration in confronting growing cyber threats. The G7 countries aspire to establish robust and secure digital environments that defend essential infrastructure, protect individuals’ privacy, and encourage trust in the digital sphere by collaboratively leveraging the potential of AI.

Promoting Responsible Al development and usage

The G7 conference will focus on developing frameworks that encourage ethical AI development. This includes fostering openness, accountability, and justice in AI systems. The emphasis is on eliminating biases in data and algorithms and ensuring that AI technologies are inclusive and do not perpetuate or magnify existing societal imbalances.

Furthermore, the G7 nations recognise the necessity of privacy protection in the context of AI. Because AI systems frequently rely on massive volumes of personal data, summit speakers emphasise the importance of stringent data privacy legislation and protections. Discussions centre around finding the correct balance between using data for AI innovation, respecting individuals’ privacy rights, and protecting data security. In addition to responsible development, the G7 meeting emphasises the importance of responsible AI use. Leaders emphasise the importance of transparent and responsible AI governance frameworks, which may include regulatory measures and standards to ensure AI technology’s ethical and legal application. The goal is to defend individuals’ rights, limit the potential exploitation of AI, and retain public trust in AI-driven solutions.

The G7 nations support collaboration among governments, businesses, academia, and civil society to foster responsible AI development and use. They stress the significance of sharing best practices, exchanging information, and developing international standards to promote ethical AI concepts and responsible practices across boundaries. The G7 nations hope to build the global AI environment in a way that prioritises human values, protects individual rights, and develops trust in AI technology by fostering responsible AI development and usage. They work together to guarantee that AI is a force for a good while reducing risks and resolving social issues related to its implementation.

Challenges on the way

During the summit, the nations, while the G7 countries are committed to combating cybercrime and developing responsible AI development, they confront several hurdles in their efforts. Some of them are:

A Rapidly Changing Cyber Threat Environment: Cybercriminals’ strategies and methods are always developing, as is the nature of cyber threats. The G7 countries must keep up with new threats and ensure their cybersecurity safeguards remain effective and adaptable.

Cross-Border Coordination: Cybercrime knows no borders, and successful cybersecurity necessitates international collaboration. On the other hand, coordinating activities among nations with various legal structures, regulatory environments, and agendas can be difficult. Harmonising rules, exchanging information, and developing confidence across states are crucial for effective collaboration.

Talent Shortage and Skills Gap: The field of cybersecurity and AI knowledge necessitates highly qualified personnel. However, skilled individuals in these fields need more supply. The G7 nations must attract and nurture people, provide training programs, and support research and innovation to narrow the skills gap.

Keeping Up with Technological Advancements: Technology changes at a rapid rate, and cyber-attacks become more complex. The G7 nations must ensure that their laws, legislation, and cybersecurity plans stay relevant and adaptive to keep up with future technologies such as AI, quantum computing, and IoT, which may both empower and challenge cybersecurity efforts.

Conclusion

To combat cyber threats effectively, support responsible AI development, and establish a robust cybersecurity ecosystem, the G7 nations must constantly analyse and adjust their strategy. By aggressively tackling these concerns, the G7 nations can improve their collective cybersecurity capabilities and defend their citizens’ and global stakeholders’ digital infrastructure and interests.

Introduction

In a business that historically operated in a landscape defined by probability and odds, India’s real-money gaming companies have taken their own legal bet, a gamble that may very well decide whether or not they survive. Play Games24x7, Junglee Games, Sachiko Gaming, and Head Digital Works were in front of India’s highest court on July 14, seeking review of an order that will ultimately decide the fate of these companies.

The Facts

The firms’ review petitions challenge the May 27 ruling in which the Supreme Court also upheld the constitutional legality of the 28% GST on online gaming, paving the way for over 1.5 trillion in back taxes. The petitions, prepared by the Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan law firm, “do not ask to set the entire case all over again” since a review is a technical process usually dealt with by the same bench of judges in their chambers when there’s an error on the record or genuinely fresh material before it before the case may potentially be referred for a new trial in open court if there is something significant in it.

The Genesis of the Legal Battle

To understand why gaming firms are pulling this lever, it helps to revisit what the Court actually decided in May. A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan ruled that once a player stakes money on an uncertain outcome, the platform is supplying an "actionable claim" arising from betting and gambling under GST law. The long-cherished distinction between a "game of skill" and a "game of chance", which the industry had used for years to argue it wasn't really gambling, was declared irrelevant the moment cash entered the pot.

Just as consequentially, the Court rejected the industry's central financial argument: that GST should be calculated only on the platform's commission, or gross gaming revenue, rather than on the entire amount players deposit into a contest. The bench sided with tax authorities, ruling that the 28% levy applies to the full face value of every bet. It also found that 2023 amendments to GST law were merely "clarificatory", not the creation of a brand-new tax, a finding that opened the door to retrospective demands stretching back years, rather than only from October 2023 onwards, when the amendments took effect.

The practical fallout was severe. The ruling revived a ₹21,000 crore notice against Gameskraft that the Karnataka High Court had earlier quashed, and it validated roughly 91 show-cause notices issued industry-wide, with estimates of the total exposure ranging as high as ₹1.5–2.5 lakh crore, depending on the source. For context, that figure dwarfs the cumulative revenues several of these companies have ever earned.

The Arguments Now on the Table

The review petitions attack the judgement from several angles. Head Digital Works, the parent of gaming platform A23, argues the case raised substantial constitutional questions that should have gone to a larger Constitution Bench rather than a two-judge bench and that the ruling contains errors serious enough to warrant reconsideration. A recurring theme across the petitions is timing: the companies contend GST should be triggered only when winnings are actually paid out to players, not the moment an entry fee changes hands, and that treating the 2023 amendments as retrospective effectively taxes transactions under a legal framework that didn't yet exist when they occurred. They also argue the ruling creates an unfair mismatch, taxing online games more harshly than comparable offline activity, and in Head Digital Works' filing that the judgement glosses over the industry's long-standing constitutional protection for skill-based businesses under Article 19(1)(g).

A Sector Already on the Ropes

What makes this legal battle unusually high-stakes is that it isn't happening in isolation. In August 2025, Parliament passed the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, banning all online real-money games nationwide regardless of whether they involve skill, chance, or a mix of both while carving out room for e-sports and social gaming. That law is itself under constitutional challenge, with hearings before a three-judge bench expected this year. So the same companies fighting a ₹1.5 trillion tax bill for games they used to run are simultaneously fighting for the right to run those games at all going forward. Add to this that GST on the relevant category of actionable claims was separately hiked to 40% in September 2025 as part of a broader rate overhaul, and it's clear the ground has shifted well beyond what the industry anticipated when this dispute began.

What Comes Next

The Supreme Court will first decide whether these petitions clear the threshold for review, a high bar by design, since courts are wary of turning review into a backdoor appeal. If the bench finds no fresh ground, the May 27 judgement becomes final, and companies will be left negotiating settlements, instalment plans, or insolvency proceedings against tax bills that, in several cases, exceed what they've ever earned. If the Court does find merit, it could reopen questions that reshape not just the gaming industry's tax liability but the constitutional line between what states can regulate as "betting and gambling" and what Parliament can tax as a national digital service.

Either way, the outcome will be watched well beyond the gaming world. Any digital business that collects money from users against an uncertain outcome from fantasy sports to prediction markets to certain fintech products has a stake in how the court defines "actionable claim" and how far a "clarificatory" amendment can legally reach into the past. Tax authorities, for their part, will be watching just as closely: a win here reinforces a template they've already begun applying to other sectors accused of restructuring around narrow tax definitions.

There's also an investor angle that tends to get lost in the legal jargon. Real-money gaming in India attracted billions of dollars in foreign investment over the past decade, built on the premise that skill-based games occupied a legitimate, constitutionally protected business category distinct from gambling. Between the May verdict and the PROGA ban, that premise has effectively collapsed within the space of a year. Whether or not the review petitions succeed, the episode is likely to be studied as a cautionary tale about regulatory and tax risk in India's digital economy, a reminder that a business model resting on a legal distinction is only as durable as a court's willingness to keep drawing that line.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision will extend far beyond the gaming industry, shaping India's approach to digital taxation, regulatory certainty, and investor confidence. For now, the ball is back in the Supreme Court's hands, and the industry has staked its remaining legal capital on convincing the same bench that got it here to think again.

Sources

• Online gaming firms move Supreme Court seeking review of verdict upholding 28% GST levy — ANI News
• Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025 — Wikipedia
• Anti-gambling act targets real-money gaming — Law.asia
• Behind the Ban: The Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025 — Lexology

‍

Introduction

On 27 July 2026, Bank of Baroda admitted to experiencing a cybersecurity attack, officially confirming many hours of chatter and speculation amongst Bank of Baroda customers and information security professionals. According to a statement by the bank issued through regulatory filing, the breach came about due to unauthorised access into some of its data via compromise of an employee’s email account; however, not much beyond these details was disclosed. In the meantime, allegations of a major large-scale data leak flooded into various platforms and forums of the cybersecurity world along with mainstream news outlets and, eventually, mainstream social networks. It’s now critically important for us to attempt to differentiate factual from unverified details about Bank of Baroda’s recent cybersecurity incident.

We will analyse and list what the bank has released, what our community research has discovered and also what questions are still left unanswered.

The bank's version

Bank of Baroda said the breach traced back to a single compromised employee email account, which gave an unknown party unauthorised access to "certain data". Crucially, the bank maintains that its core banking systems, that is, the infrastructure that actually moves customer money, were never touched. It says the incident was detected and contained quickly and that it is working with law enforcement and regulators while a forensic investigation continues. That's a fairly narrow admission compared with what had already surfaced on the dark web.

What the hackers claim

Days before the bank's statement, a relatively new ransomware and data-extortion group calling itself ‘TripleX’  listed Bank of Baroda on its dark web leak site, dated July 24. The group claimed to have pulled roughly 1 terabyte of data and, unusually, released the entire cache for free rather than holding it for ransom, framing the move on its leak page as punishment for the bank's weak passwords and security lapses.

Independent researcher Srikanth Lakshmanan, founder of the digital-rights group 'CashlessConsumer', examined samples of the leaked material before alerting the bank and authorities. He told India Today Tech that what he reviewed included internal branch audit files, loan appraisal documents, vigilance investigation records, audit reports tied to the bank's bob World mobile app, and customer account-opening forms.

Several outlets also reported that sample files appeared to contain Aadhaar numbers, customer photographs, and NetBanking details, alongside corporate and NRI banking records. It's worth being precise here, though: Reuters and other outlets have emphasised that the exact contents and true scale of the leak haven't been independently verified, and Bank of Baroda itself hasn't confirmed which specific data categories were exposed. Estimates of the dataset's size have also varied anywhere from around 700 gigabytes to a full terabyte, depending on the source.

A repeat offender

TripleX isn't new to targeting state-owned banks. The gang first appeared in May 2026, and only weeks before targeting Bank of Baroda, it claimed responsibility for hacking PT Bank Negara Indonesia – the largest of Indonesia's state-owned banks, which stole nearly 2 terabytes of documents, including contracts, IDs and transaction histories. Both compromises follow a familiar pattern. Identify one point of entry, extract widely, and instead of working in the background to negotiate for a ransom, publish everything for the largest damage possible.

This represents a notable break from typical ransomware attacks. Groups such as TripleX forego encryption, simply relying solely on the public pressure of (or actuality of) imminent disclosure to extort victims. It is the extortion component of "double extortion" with little incentive to pursue payment.

The regulatory clock

India's banking sector doesn't get much slack when something like this happens. The Reserve Bank of India's Cyber Security Framework for Banks requires an initial incident report within two to six hours of detection, and India's Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In) mandates reporting of specified incidents within six hours. Bank of Baroda has also reportedly filed a preliminary notice under a cyber-insurance programme arranged through National Insurance, offering total coverage of roughly $78 million,  though it's far too early to know whether it will actually be paid out or how much will actually be paid out.

Looking ahead, India's Digital Personal Data Protection Rules are due to take effect in May 2027, which will tighten breach-notification obligations further. This incident lands right at the edge of that regulatory transition, arguably a preview of what's at stake for the next bank that gets hit.

A History of Data Security Missteps

This is not the first time banks’ technology has raised a red flag. In 2023, an investigation by The Reporters’ Collective and Al Jazeera discovered that bank employees had inserted the mobile numbers of unauthorised agents (including those belonging to staff and security guards) and other businesses into their customers' profiles to drive enrolment on the bank’s app – BoB World. Several of the bank's customers were later victims of fraud due to the unauthorised association of mobile numbers, and the bank had its own internally reported data issues that later led to the RBI mandating an audit and then prohibiting the bank from onboarding new Bob World users temporarily. Even though the two issues are not related, it serves as context; in the case of banks handling more than $300 billion in their global operations through over 8,400 domestic locations, room for security errors is marginal, and the damage, both public and regulatory, escalates from there on.

What it means for customers

For those who bank with the Bank of Baroda, the common-sense approach is checking statements for any unfamiliar transactions; beware unsolicited calls/messages referencing account details (which typically follow after identity document leaks are being used as a basis for secondary scams); and as a security precaution, change your NetBanking password and app PIN while no core systems of the bank are reported to have been breached; even so, it is advisable to apply. Because Aadhaar, if it has been really compromised, cannot be reset like a password, which is why a compromised identity document is typically of longer-term risk than a stolen password.

Conclusion

The bigger story here isn't just one bank's bad week. It's a reminder that in a system where a single compromised employee inbox can cascade into hundreds of gigabytes of exposed customer data, "our core systems weren't affected" is true and reassuring and, for anyone whose loan documents or ID numbers may now be sitting on a dark web forum, somewhat beside the point.

Sources

1. Bank of Baroda confirms cyber incident after hackers claim data theft — The Record (Recorded Future News): https://therecord.media/india-bank-of-baroda-reports-cybersecurity-incident
2. Bank of Baroda Data Leak: What We Know So Far — Gulf News: https://gulfnews.com/business/banking/bank-of-baroda-data-leak-what-we-know-so-far-about-alleged-cyber-breach-1.500621898
3. Bank of Baroda Breach Tests Disclosure Readiness — GovInfoSecurity (ISMG): https://www.govinfosecurity.com/bank-baroda-breach-tests-disclosure-readiness-a-32335
4. India's Bank of Baroda Faces Alleged 1TB Data Leak on Dark Web — Yahoo Finance / India Today Tech: https://finance.yahoo.com/technology/ai/articles/india-bank-baroda-faces-alleged-113047992.html
5. Bank of Baroda Data Breach Exposes Customer Records — The Asian Banker: https://www.theasianbanker.com/updates-and-articles/india-s-bank-of-baroda-data-breach-exposes-customer-records-after-employee-email-compromise
6. India's Bank of Baroda Expose Worsens: Agents Steal Money From Accounts (2023 background) — Al Jazeera: https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2023/10/12/indias-bank-of-baroda-expose-worsens-agents-steal-money-from-accounts
7. 'Immediate Containment Measures Implemented': Bank of Baroda Issues Clarity on Alleged 1TB Data Leak — Republic World: https://www.republicworld.com/business/immediate-containment-measures-implemented-bank-of-baroda-issues-clarity-on-1tb-data-leak-2026-07-27-133590

‍