#FactCheck: Old EVM Protest Video Misleadingly Shared as Demonstration Against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar

Introduction

‍

The courts in India have repeatedly emphasised the importance of “enhanced customer protection” and “limited liability” on their part. The rationale behind such imperatives is to extend security against exploitation by institutions that are equipped with all the means to manipulate customers. India, with its looming financial literacy gaps that have to be addressed, needs to curb any manipulation on the part of banking institutions. Various studies have highlighted this gap in recent times; for example, according to the National Centre for Financial Education, only 27% of Indian people are financially literate, which is much less than the 42% global average. With only 19% of millennials exhibiting sufficient financial awareness yet expressing high trust in their financial skills, the issue is very worrisome. Thus, the increasing number of financial frauds intensifies the issue. 

Zero Liability in Cyber Frauds: Regulatory Safeguards for Digital Banking Customers

‍

In light of the growing emphasis on financial inclusion and consumer protection, and in response to the recent rise in complaints regarding unauthorised debits from customer accounts and cards, the framework for assessing customer liability in such cases has been re-evaluated. The RBI’s circular dated July 6, 2017 titled “Customer Protection-Limited Liability of Customers in Unauthorised Electronic Banking Transactions”  serves as the foundation for regulatory protections for Indian customers of digital banking. A clear and organised framework for determining customer accountability is outlined in the circular, which acknowledges the exponential increase in electronic transactions and related scams. It assigns proportional obligations for unauthorised transactions resulting from system-level breaches, client carelessness, and bank contributory negligence. Most importantly it establishes the zero responsibility concept, which protects clients from monetary losses in cases when the bank or another system component is at fault and the client promptly reports the breach. 

This directive’s sophisticated approach to consumer protection is what makes it unique. It requires banks to set up strong fraud prevention systems, proactive alerting systems, and round-the-clock reporting systems. Furthermore, it significantly alters the power dynamics between financial institutions and customers by placing the onus of demonstrating customer negligence completely on the bank. The circular emphasises prompt reversal of funds to impacted customers and requires banks to implement Board-approved policies on liability to redress. As a result, it is a consumer rights charter rather than just a compliance document, promoting confidence and financial accountability in India’s digital banking sector. 

Judicial Endorsement in Reinforcing the Zero Liability Principle

‍

 In the case of Suresh Chandra Negi & Anr. v. Bank of Baroda & Ors. (Writ (C) No. 24192 of 2022) The Allahabad High Court reaffirmed that the burden of proving consumer accountability rests firmly on the banking institution, hence reaffirming the zero liability concept in circumstances of unapproved electronic banking transactions. The Division bench emphasised the regulatory requirement that banks provide adequate proof before assigning blame to customers, citing Clause 12 of the RBI’s circular dated June 6, 2017, Customer Protection—Limited Liability of Customers in Unauthorised Electronic Banking Transactions. In a similar scenario, the Bombay HC held that a customer is entitled to zero liability when an authorized transaction occurs due to a third-party breach, where the deficiency lies neither with the bank nor the customer, provided the fraud is promptly reported. 

The zero liability principle, as envisaged under Clause 8 of the RBI circular, has emerged as a cornerstone of consumer protection in India’s digital banking ecosystem.  

Another landmark judgment that has given this principle the front stage in addressing banking frauds is Hare Ram Singh vs RBI &Ors. (W.P. (C) 13497/2022) laid down by Delhi HC which is an important legal turning point in the development of the zero liability principle under the RBI’s 2017 framework. The court reiterated the need to evaluate customer diligence in light of new fraud tactics like phishing and vishing by holding the State Bank of India (SBI) liable for a cyber fraud incident even though the transactions were authenticated by OTP. The ruling made it clear that when complex social engineering or technical manipulation is used, banks are nonetheless accountable even if they only rely on OTP validation. The legal protection provided to victims of unauthorised electronic banking transactions is strengthened by the court’s emphasis on the bank having the burden of evidence in accordance with RBI standards. 

Importantly, this ruling lays the full burden of securing digital banking systems on financial organisations and supports the judiciary’s increasing acknowledgement of the digital asymmetry between banks and consumers. It emphasises that prompt consumer reporting, banks’ failure to disclose important credentials, and their own operational errors must all be taken into consideration when determining culpability. As a result, this decision establishes a strong precedent that will increase consumer confidence, promote systemic advancements in digital risk management, and better integrate the zero liability standard into Indian digital banking law. In a time when cyber vulnerabilities are growing, it acts as a beacon for financial accountability. 

Conclusion

‍

The Zero Liability Principle serves as a vital safety net for customers navigating an increasingly intricate and precarious financial environment in a time when digital transactions are the foundation of contemporary banking. In addition to codifying strong safeguards against unauthorized electronic transactions, the RBI’s 2017 framework rebalanced  the fiduciary relationship by putting financial institutions squarely in charge. Through significant rulings, the courts have upheld this protective culture and emphasised that banks, not the victims of cybercrime, bear the burden of proof. 

It would be crucial to execute these principles consistently, review them frequently, and raise public awareness as India transitions to a more digital economy. In order to ensure that consumers are not only protected but also empowered must become more than just a policy on paper. 

‍

References

• https://www.business-standard.com/content/specials/making-money-vs-managing-money-india-s-critical-financial-literacy-gap-125021900786_1.html 
• https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/allahabad-high-court/allahabad-high-court-ruling-bank-liability-unauthorized-electronic-transaction-and-customer-fault-297962 
• https://www.mondaq.com/india/white-collar-crime-anti-corruption-fraud/1635616/cyber-law-series-2-issue-10-the-zero-liability-principle-in-cyber-fraud-hare-ram-singh-v-reserve-bank-of-india-ors-case 

‍

Introduction

The global food industry is vast and complex, influencing consumer behaviour, policy, and health outcomes worldwide. However, misinformation within this sector is pervasive, with significant consequences for public health and market dynamics. Misinformation can arise from various sources, including misleading marketing campaigns, unsubstantiated health claims, and misrepresentation of food production practices through public endorsement or otherwise. Nutrition misinformation is one such example. The promotion of false or unproven products for profit can lead to mislead consumers and affect their interests. Misleading claims and inaccurate information about the nutritional value of food products and processes are common claims. The misinformation created about food on the global stage distorts public understanding of nutrition, food safety, and environmental impacts, leading to significant consequences for public health, consumer trust, and the economy.

Rise of Nutritional Misinformation and Consumer Distrust

Health and nutrition-related misinformation is one of the most prevalent types in the food sector. Businesses frequently advertise their products as "natural" or "healthy" without providing sufficient data to back up these claims, tricking customers into buying goods that might be heavy in fat, sugar, or salt. Words like "superfood" are frequently used without supporting evidence from science, giving the impression that they are healthier.

Misinformation also impacts the sustainability and ethics of food production. Claims of "sustainable" or "ethical" sourcing are frequently exaggerated or fabricated, leaving consumers unaware of the true environmental and social costs associated with certain products.

This lack of clarity is not only observed in general food trends but also within organisations meant to provide trustworthy information. There has been significant criticism, directed at the International Food Information Council (IFIC), for their alleged promotion of nutrition-based misinformation to safeguard the interests of large food corporations, resulting in potentially compromising public health. The preemptive claims that IFIC made about the nutritive claims have been questioned by the National Institutes of Health, USA in November 2022. They reported in their study that IFIC promotes food and beverage company interests and undermines the accurate dissemination of scientific evidence related to diet and health. This was in support of the objective of the study, which was to determine whether, there have been many claims that the nutritional value of certain foods or diets may be manipulated to favour business goals, leaving consumers misinformed about what constitutes a truly healthy diet.

Another source of misinformation is the growing ‘Free-From’ fad. The “free-from” label in the US is a food category of products that claim to be free from certain ingredients or chemicals. It has been steadily growing by 7% annually. These labels often tout products as healthier due to a simpler ingredient list. Although seemingly harmless, transparency in ingredient disclosure is often obscured in the 'free-from' trend. This can lead to consumer distrust in the long run, making them hesitant.

The Harmful Effects of Food Misinformation

The effects of misinformation about nutrition and food safety can directly affect public health.
Consumers unknowingly may accept false claims or avoid certain foods without scientific basis and adopt harmful dietary habits, potentially leading to malnutrition or other health problems. By the time the realisation sets in about being misled, their trust is eroded not only towards such companies but also towards the regulators. This distrust can lead to declining consumer confidence and disrupt market stability. 

Some food-related misinformation downplays the environmental impact that certain food production practices have. An example of such a situation is the promotion of meat alternatives as being entirely eco-friendly without considering all environmental factors. This can mislead consumers and obscure the complex environmental effects of food production systems. 

Misinformation can distort consumer purchasing habits, potentially leading to a reduced demand for certain products and unfair competition. The sufferers in this case are the small-scale producers who suffer disproportionately, while the large corporations might use this misinformation to maintain their dominance in the market. Regulatory checks, open communication, and public education campaigns are needed to combat mis/disinformation in the global food sector and enable consumers to make decisions that are sustainable, healthful and informed.

CyberPeace Recommendations

• Unfair trade practices like providing misleading information or unchecked claims on food products should be better addressed by the regulators. Companies must provide clear, transparent and accurate information about their products as mandated under the Food Safety and Standards (Advertising and Claims) Regulations, 2018. This information should include the true origins, production methods, and nutritional content on their labels.
• Promotions of initiatives and investments by public health organisations and food authorities towards educating consumers and improving food literacy should encouraged. 
• Regulating social media endorsement is also crucial to prevent the spread of misinformation and unchecked claims. Without proper due diligence on product details, influencers may unknowingly mislead their audience, causing potential harm. 
• The Social Media Platforms can partner with nutritionists, dietitians, and other health professionals who are content creators, as they can help in understanding and promoting accurate, science-based nutrition information and debunk any misleading claims.
• Campaigns should be encouraged to spread public awareness about the harms of food-related misleading claims or trends. Emphasis should be on evidence-based nutritional guidance. The ongoing research towards food safety, nutrition, and true information should be actively communicated to keep the public informed. Combating food misinformation requires more robust regulations, improved transparency, and heightened consumer awareness and vigilance.

References

• https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/label-claims-on-packaged-food-could-be-misleading-icmr/articleshow/110053363.cms 
• https://www.outlookindia.com/hub4business/empowering-change-freedom-food-alliance-takes-on-global-food-industry-misinformation 
• https://insightsnow.com/misinformation-hurting-food-business/ ‍
• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9618198/pdf/12992_2022_Article_884.pdf

Executive Summary

In the Philippines, social media users have been sharing a video and an image following complaints over sharp increases in electricity bills. The posts claim that, in exchange for higher electricity charges, low-income households are being provided free electricity and air conditioning units. However, a fact-check by CyberPeace Research Wing found no evidence to support these claims. A closer examination of the visuals revealed several inconsistencies and visual indicators suggesting that the content is likely AI-generated.

‍

Claim

‍

An image was also shared on Instagram on April 29, showing purported beneficiaries holding new air conditioning units allegedly provided “free by the government.”

• https://www.instagram.com/p/DXtuUhuEtK9/embed/captioned 

‍

‍

Fact Check 

‍

However, the video and image circulating on social media do not actually show beneficiaries receiving any subsidy. A closer analysis of the visuals indicates that the content is AI-generated. In the initial frames of the misrepresented video, a diamond-shaped icon can be seen in the bottom-right corner, which is the watermark associated with Google’s Gemini AI model.

Further analysis using Google’s SynthID Detector, a tool designed to identify AI-generated content, indicated with a “very high” level of confidence that the material was created using the company’s AI technology.

‍

‍

The country’s social welfare agency also issued a statement on Facebook on April 30, rejecting the claim and saying it is “not true” and intended only to “propagate wrong information.” Social welfare agency statement on Facebook

• https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=1373756198132587&set=a.665386155636265

‍

‍

Conclusion

‍

However, the video and image circulating on social media do not actually show beneficiaries receiving any subsidy. A closer analysis of the visuals indicates that the content is AI-generated. In the initial frames of the misrepresented video, a diamond-shaped icon can be seen in the bottom-right corner, which is the watermark associated with Google’s Gemini AI model. The viral video and image are misleading. Multiple inconsistencies and visual cues suggest that the content is likely AI-generated, and the claim that low-income households are receiving free electricity and air conditioners is false.

‍