#FactCheck: Old Video Falsely Linked to October 10 Protest at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar

Introduction

The war over children and social media, once mostly waged in headlines, committee hearings, and video clips of executives begging apologies from distraught families, has officially reached to courts. This past Monday, August 26, 2026, Meta reportedly agreed to settle for an estimated $18 billion for the sprawling, multi-state class action suit that accused the social media titan of intentionally designing Instagram and Facebook to be addictive for children and of actively failing to shield them from child abuse imagery, disordered eating websites and much more. This record $18 billion, one of the largest ever obtained against a consumer-facing business, occurred just over a week into a high-profile trial in Oakland, in which four states pursued nearly $1.4 trillion in damages against Meta. Even more important than the headline figure, though, is what actually lies in the fine print (or what the settlement leaves distinctly out): the future of teen safety law.

What Meta agreed to pay  and to whom

The settlement resolves claims brought jointly by 29 states in 2023, which eventually grew into a coalition of 47 states, the District of Columbia, and several U.S. territories. Just over $17 billion goes toward that multistate case, with the remainder settling claims from other states. Notably, three states, Texas, New Mexico, and Florida, settled separately. Texas alone secured over $1 billion, on top of the $1.4 billion Meta paid the state in 2024 over biometric data misuse. New Mexico had already won its own jury trial in March 2026, when jurors found Meta violated the state's consumer protection law and ordered a $375 million penalty; a judge later added further penalties, pushing that case's total past $560 million.

Under the multistate deal, there's a revealing structural detail: Meta will hand over only 70% of the total (about $12.7 billion) unless TikTok and YouTube also agree to adopt matching safety measures, daily time limits, night mode, and age assurance tools. The remaining 30% ($5.3 billion) is contingent on rivals falling in line and paying comparable sums. In other words, Meta is using its own settlement as leverage to drag competitors into the same regulatory box, a move Meta's chief legal officer, C.J. Mahoney, framed as setting "the right path forward for our whole industry".

Changes made by the Platform

Beyond the check, Meta has committed to a list of design changes for teen accounts:

• A default two-hour daily screen-time limit, with prompts every 15 minutes encouraging "intentional use"
• Accounts that Meta flags belonging to minors will be blocked from the apps overnight (midnight–6 a.m.)
• Notifications muted during school hours (8 a.m.–3 p.m.)
• Teens will no longer see "like" counts on their own or others' posts by default
• Continued investment in AI-driven age-detection technology — the "adult classifier" system Meta has been building since 2021, which scans behavioral signals (who you follow, what you engage with, even "happy birthday" posts) to guess whether an account belongs to a minor, regardless of the birthday entered at signup

Meta has also publicly called on app stores to shoulder more of the age-verification burden themselves, a signal that the next legal battleground may shift from the apps themselves to the operating systems and stores that distribute them.

Why critics say the "money machine" walks away largely intact

Here is the uncomfortable arithmetic several legal analysts have pointed out: Meta's $18 billion is being paid out over 10 years, against a company whose 2025 revenue exceeded $200 billion. As one technology litigator told TechCrunch, spreading the payment over a decade "really does blunt the financial impact of the large number". Meta did not admit wrongdoing. No executive faces personal liability. And crucially, the design changes Meta agreed to are largely features it had already begun rolling out voluntarily: teen accounts, PG-13 content defaults, and AI age detection, meaning the settlement in some ways ratifies Meta's existing roadmap rather than forcing a fundamentally different business model. Child-safety advocates have voiced similar scepticism. As one advocacy group leader put it around Meta's earlier safety announcements, such moves are as much about managing the narrative as they are about substantive protection.

Work in Progress

Perhaps the most important vulnerability in the settlement is this: nearly every protection Meta's promise depends on accurately knowing who is a teenager. Age-verification and age-prediction technology remains genuinely unreliable. Meta itself has never disclosed hard accuracy figures for its AI "adult classifier", and outside researchers have long warned that both self-declared birthdates and AI inference are trivially gamed by tech-savvy teens — and prone to misclassifying adults. If the underlying age-detection layer is porous, the two-hour limits, overnight blackouts, and muted like counts are protections that exist only for the users who show up to be counted.

Why this case is really about digital ID

This is where the story stops being just a corporate-liability story and becomes a civil-liberties one. The original complaint from California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey explicitly asked the court to compel Meta to implement "multi-layered age verification at account sign-up" going beyond birthdates to methods like submitting student IDs. As digital-rights outlet Reclaim The Net has argued, verifying that some users are minors necessarily means putting every user through an identity check because the system can't know who's underage without checking everyone. That's the quiet trade-off sitting inside nearly every child-safety proposal now moving through state legislatures and courts: protecting kids online, as currently conceived by regulators, increasingly means asking adults to prove who they are just to open an app.

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who is overseeing the underlying federal case, took the unusual step of empanelling an advisory jury to weigh in on specific factual questions even as settlement talks proceeded, which is a sign that courts are trying to build a durable evidentiary record regardless of how individual cases resolve. That record, which is an unsealed internal research, executive testimony, and coroners' findings cited in court filings  is exactly the kind of material state and federal lawmakers will cite for years as they draft the next generation of age-verification and social media laws.

Conclusion

The Meta settlement is unlikely to be the last of its kind. Thousands of similar lawsuits from families, school districts, and other states remain active, and the California bellwether trial's findings will likely shape settlement math for TikTok, YouTube, and Snap. Expect three parallel tracks to accelerate: state legislatures pushing app-store-level age verification; plaintiffs' lawyers using unsealed Meta documents as templates for the next wave of suits; and Meta itself continuing to invest in AI-based age detection partly to protect teens and partly to insulate itself from the next $18 billion bill. Whether that technology can be built without turning every internet user into someone who has to prove their age at the door is the legal and technological question that will define this fight for the next decade.

Sources

• Meta settles landmark state child harm claims for $18 billion – CNN Business
• Meta's $18B child-safety deal hinges on age-verification tech that doesn't work well – TechCrunch
• Meta to pay 47 states up to $17.1B in landmark child safety settlement – Stateline
• Meta's $18bn settlement: How social platforms will change for child users – Al Jazeera
• Meta to pay Texas $1 billion in child safety case – The Texas Tribune
• Meta Trial Opens as States Demand Age Verification – Reclaim The Net
• States' complaint against Meta (PDF) – Reclaim The Net document archive
• Jury finds Meta's platforms harmful to children in first wave of lawsuits – PBS NewsHour / AP
• Instagram's AI-based teen account detection – TechCrunch

‍

Introduction

The Chairman of Vardhman Group, Mr SP Oswal, an India-based textile manufacturer, fell victim to a cyber fraud scheme that cost him ₹7 crore. The scam unfolded on August 28 and 29, conning Mr Oswal into transferring Rs 7 crore into multiple bank accounts. As per the recent reports, the Police have managed to freeze these accounts and recover over Rs 5 crore as of now. The fraudsters convinced Mr SP Oswal that he was a suspect in a money laundering investigation and held on a “Digital Arrest”. These are sophisticated cyber frauds where cyber-criminals impersonate law enforcement officials or other authorities and target innocent individuals with manipulative tactics. The scam targets are often contacted out of the blue, on Instant messaging apps like WhatsApp and informed that their bank accounts, digital identities, or other online assets have been compromised. Criminals play into the victims' fear by threatening them with imminent arrest, legal consequences, or public humiliation if they don't cooperate with a series of urgent demands.

Posing as Officials, Fraudsters Orchestrate ₹7 Crore Scam

The investigation revealed that the fraudsters posed as members of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). They had contacted Mr Oswal and claimed that his Aadhaar had been misused in a case involving fake passports and financial fraud. The imposter conducted a video call in a police uniform using a background with the CBI logo. The fraud escalated further, Mr Oswal got a fake "arrest warrant" on  WhatsApp allegedly authorised by the Supreme Court. Fraudsters convinced Mr Oswal to transfer ₹7 crores to facilitate bail proceedings, claiming he was under "digital arrest". The meticulously planned scam involved fake documents, a virtual courtroom, and relentless intimidation tactics leaving Mr Oswal effectively under "digital arrest" for two days. While the police have successfully recovered over Rs 5 crore so far, this case highlights the alarming threat of digital impersonation of law enforcement authorities.

Legal Outlook on the Validity of Digital Arrests

In India, the main laws governing cyber crimes are the Information Technology Act, of 2000 and the rules made under therein, and the newly enacted Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Recently enacted new criminal laws do not provide for any provision for law enforcement agencies conducting a digital arrest.  The law only provides for service of the summons and the proceedings in an electronic mode. Hence, there are no provisions for conducting 'digital arrests' as per the laws of the country. 

Further, It should be noted that the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C), under the Ministry of Home Affairs, coordinates the activities related to combating cybercrime in the country. MHA works closely with other ministries to counter these frauds. The I4C also provides technical support to the police authorities of states/UTs for the identification and investigation of these cases. 

Best Practices to Avoid Digital Arrest Scams 

• To protect yourself from scams, it is crucial to verify the identity of individuals claiming to be law enforcement or government officials and use official contact channels to confirm their credentials. 
• Be cautious of pressure tactics used by fraudsters, especially demands for quick payment over unverified communication platforms like WhatsApp. 
• Cross-check official documents with legal advisors or relevant authorities. 
• Never share sensitive personal information, such as your Aadhaar number, over phone calls, emails, or messages without verifying the request's authenticity. 
• Avoid untraceable payments, such as cryptocurrency or prepaid cards, without validating the transaction's legitimacy, especially under duress. 
• Stay informed on scam techniques, particularly those involving impersonation and digital threats. 
• Enable Two-Factor Authentication (2FA) for sensitive online accounts to prevent misuse. 
• Consult advice from legal professionals if you receive threatening communication involving digital arrest or legal actions and do not take any action on the asks of persons posing as legitimate authorities. 
• In case of any cybercrime, you can file a complaint at cybercrime.gov.in or helpline number 1930. You can also seek assistance from the CyberPeace helpline at +91 9570000066.

Conclusion

The digital arrest of Vardhman Group's CEO underscores the increasing sophistication of cyber fraud schemes, which exploit fear and urgency, leading to severe financial and reputational harm. No one is immune from cybercrime, vigilance is essential at all leadership levels. While laws like the IT Act and initiatives taken by the I4C help combat cybercrime, rapidly evolving threats demand proactive safety measures. Beyond the possibility of financial loss, incidents like this jeopardise brand reputation, investor confidence, and operational stability. Be cautious of such threats and exercise due care and caution while navigating the digital landscape. Be aware of such kinds of scams and the manipulative tactics used by fraudsters to avoid them. By staying vigilant and aware we can avoid the growing scam of digital arrests. 

References

• https://www.business-standard.com/companies/news/digital-arrest-and-rs-7-crore-heist-how-vardhman-group-head-was-tricked-124100100832_1.html
• https://www.hindustantimes.com/business/vardhman-group-chairman-sp-oswal-duped-of-rs-7-crore-fraudsters-posed-as-cbi-101727666912738.html 
• https://www.msspalert.com/native/digital-arrests-the-new-frontier-of-cybercrime

‍

Executive Summary
‍

A video of Prime Minister Narendra Modi is being widely shared on social media with the claim that he is being “made up” or styled by a team, with users attempting to mock him using the footage. The clip is being circulated with misleading captions suggesting it shows the Prime Minister undergoing makeup and grooming by a dedicated team. CyberPeace Foundation Research Wing, in its research, found that the viral claim is false. In fact, the viral video is not recent, but from 2016. At that time, a statue of PM Modi was to be installed at Madame Tussauds Museum. A team of artists and experts visited the Prime Minister's residence to take measurements for the statue. This misleading claim has been circulating on social media for several years. We have previously fact-checked this claim and exposed the truth.

‍

Claim

‍

An X user named “Adv Shubham” shared the viral video on May 27, 2026, with the caption:“This is how Modi Ji is styled…”The post also claims that the Prime Minister is regularly “made up” by a team.

• https://x.com/AdvShubhamllb/status/2059682034289946746
• https://perma.cc/FVM9-PQBP

‍

‍

‍

Fact Check

‍

The viral video is not recent. It dates back to 2016 and is related to a completely different context. During the investigation, we found the same footage on the official YouTube channel of Madame Tussauds London, uploaded on March 16, 2016.

• https://youtu.be/l5uLM76OFVU?si=H1iq_tkybwzd44jL

‍

‍

According to the video details, it shows the process of taking measurements for a wax statue of Prime Minister Narendra Modi for installation at Madame Tussauds. A team of artists and experts had visited the Prime Minister’s residence in Delhi for this purpose.

‍

Conclusion
‍

The viral claim that Prime Minister Narendra Modi is being “made up” by a team is false. The footage is from 2016 and shows a measurement session conducted for his wax statue at Madame Tussauds Museum.

‍