#FactCheck: False Claims of Fireworks in Dubai International Stadium celebrating India’s Champions Trophy Victory 2025

Introduction

The appeal is to be heard by the TDSAT (telecommunication dispute settlement & appellate tribunal) regarding several changes under Digital personal data protection. The Changes should be a removal of the deemed consent, a change in appellate mechanism, No change in delegation legislation, and under data breach. And there are some following other changes in the bill, and the digital personal data protection bill 2023 will now provide a negative list of countries that cannot transfer the data.

New Version of the DPDP Bill

The Digital Personal Data Protection Bill has a new version. There are three major changes in the 2022 draft of the digital personal data protection bill. The changes are as follows:  The new version proposes changes that there shall be no deemed consent under the bill and that the personal data processing should be for limited uses only. By giving the deemed consent, there shall be consent for the processing of data for any purposes. That is why there shall be no deemed consent.

• In the interest of the sovereignty
• The integrity of India and the National Security
• For the issue of subsidies, benefits, services, certificates, licenses, permits, etc
• To comply with any judgment or order under the law
• To protect, assist, or provide service in a medical or health emergency, a disaster situation, or to maintain public order
• In relation to an employee and his/her rights

The 2023 version now includes an appeals mechanism

It states that the Board will have the authority to issue directives for data breach remediation or mitigation, investigate data breaches and complaints, and levy financial penalties. It would be authorised to submit complaints to alternative dispute resolution, accept voluntary undertakings from data fiduciaries, and advise the government to prohibit a data fiduciary’s website, app, or other online presence if the terms of the law were regularly violated. The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal will hear any appeals.

The other change is in delegated legislation, as one of the criticisms of the 2022 version bill was that it gave the government extensive rule-making powers. The committee also raised the same concern with the ministry. The committed wants that the provisions that cannot be fully defined within the scope of the bill can be addressed.

The other major change raised in the new version bill is regarding the data breach; there will be no compensation for the data breach. This raises a significant concern for the victims, If the victims suffer a data breach and he approaches the relevant court or authority, he will not be awarded compensation for the loss he has suffered due to the data breach.

Need of changes under DPDP

There is a need for changes in digital personal data protection as we talk about the deemed consent so simply speaking, by ‘deeming’ consent for subsequent uses, your data may be used for purposes other than what it has been provided for and, as there is no provision for to be informed of this through mandatory notice, there may never even come to know about it.‍

Conclusion

The bill requires changes to meet the need of evolving digital landscape in the digital personal data protection 2022 draft. The removal of deemed consent will ultimately protect the data of the data principal. And the data of the data principal will be used or processed only for the purpose for which the consent is given.  The change in the appellate mechanism is also crucial as it meets the requirements of addressing appeals. However, the no compensation for a data breach is derogatory to the interest of the victim who has suffered a data breach.

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

‍

A video circulating widely on social media claims to show former US President Donald Trump issuing a threat to India over its relationship with Russia. In the clip, Trump is allegedly heard warning New Delhi that if it does not cut bilateral ties with Moscow, the United States would “treat India the same way Pakistan did during the May war.”

The reference to the “May war” appears to point to the India-Pakistan military escalation in May 2025, which followed the Pahalgam terror attack and India’s retaliatory strikes under Operation Sindoor targeting terror infrastructure.

However, research done by the Cyber Peace Foundation has found that the video is misleading and digitally manipulated.

The visuals used in the viral clip are genuine and were taken from a press briefing addressed by Donald Trump on January 3, 2026. However, the audio track accompanying the video has been fabricated and falsely superimposed to 

misrepresent his remarks. In the original address, Trump was speaking about a US-led military operation in Caracas that reportedly resulted in the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife. He made no reference to India, Russia, or any geopolitical warning involving New Delhi.

‍

Claim:

‍

On January 10, an X (formerly Twitter) user, Niki Chiri (@cutehunmee), shared a video claiming it showed Donald Trump threatening India over its ties with Russia.

In the clip, Trump is purportedly heard stating that unless India severed its relationship with Moscow, the United States would respond in a manner similar to Pakistan’s actions during the May conflict.

The post quickly gained traction, with several users amplifying the claim. Iink,archive link and screenshot

• https://x.com/cutehunmee/status/2010021891499798867?s=20 
• https://archive.ph/60tFx 

‍

Research:

‍

To verify the authenticity of the video, the Cyber Peace Foundation conducted a reverse image and video analysis. A Google Lens search led investigators to a longer version of the same footage uploaded on the official YouTube channel of The Wall Street Journal, a prominent US-based news outlet.

A comparison confirmed that both videos shared identical visuals, background elements, and camera angles, establishing that the viral clip was sourced from the same press address.

A review of the full speech, however, showed that Trump did not issue any warning to India, nor did he mention Russia or the May conflict. His remarks were strictly focused on developments in Venezuela.

This confirmed that the viral video had been digitally altered. Here is the link to the original video, along with a screenshot:

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOpgLIDrHq0 

‍

‍

In the next phase of the research, the audio track from the viral clip was extracted and analysed using the AI-based voice detection tool Aurigin. The results indicated a high likelihood that the voice in the video was artificially generated, further confirming that the audio did not originate from Trump’s original speech. A screenshot of the result is provided below.

‍

‍

Conclusion

‍

The claim that a video shows Donald Trump threatening India over its ties with Russia is false. The Cyber Peace Foundation found that while the visuals were taken from a real press address, the audio was fabricated and overlaid to falsely attribute threatening statements to Trump. The manipulated video was circulated online to mislead viewers and spread disinformation.

‍