#FactCheck: Old Video of Israeli Basketball Player Yam Madar Falsely Linked to Flydubai Flight Accident
Executive Summary
A video showing people dancing inside an aircraft with a speaker playing music is being shared on social media with the claim that they were celebrating after surviving an accident involving a flydubai flight travelling from Dubai to Tel Aviv. However, CyberPeace Research found that the video was actually shared by an Israeli sports media outlet in August 2025, and shows Israeli basketball player Yam Madar playing music through a speaker inside a flight.
Claim
A video is going viral on social media showing a person playing music through a speaker inside an aircraft, while other passengers can be seen dancing to the song being played.
https://x.com/NirmalJ8881922/status/2105542863278973186
Fact Check:
We began our research into the viral video using the InVID tool and extracted several keyframes from it. During this process, we found the same video on the Instagram account of Israeli sports media channel Sports 5, where it was uploaded on August 18, 2025. The video was accompanied by a caption in Hebrew, which translates into Hindi as: “Don’t take a sleeping pill: This is what it’s like to be on a flight with Yam Madar.”
https://www.instagram.com/reels/DNgQrgLsW11/
During our research, we also found an interview with another player from the Israeli basketball team, Khadeen Carrington, uploaded on Sports 5’s YouTube channel on August 26, 2025. During the interview, when Carrington was asked about his relationship with the other members of the team, he referred to the aforementioned video featuring Yam Madar.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_0AzSWlvJw
Conclusion
The evidence gathered during our research makes it clear that the video being linked to the flydubai flight accident is old. The person seen in the video is Yam Madar, a member of the Israeli basketball team.
Related Blogs
Introduction
On June 11, 2026, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) India released one of the most critical Indian government advisories concerning cybersecurity by the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) under the National Cybercrime Threat Analytics Unit (NCTAU) concerning the immediate and escalating threat posed by the weaponization of generative artificial intelligence to forge synthetic biometric identities capable of bypassing the existing facial verification mechanisms in India. This advisory is arguably one of the most explicit Indian government recognitions of the deep-seated threats associated with AI-generated deepfakes in the country’s digital financial infrastructure. As many Indian financial service providers embrace facial recognition and biometric verification systems for customer onboarding and authentications, the myth that biometric traits are in themselves secure is slowly unraveling.
The advisory states that cybercriminals are deploying sophisticated AI tools to forge such credible digital simulacrums that exhibit such a precise similarity of facial expressions, eye movements, eye blinks, head movements, and voice patterns that they are virtually indistinguishable from the originals for identity verification mechanisms. Such a confluence of easy AI technology, mass onboarding of digital identities, and underdeveloped infrastructure to detect these synthetics requires urgent regulatory, institutional, and technological intervention.
The I4C Advisory: Core Findings and Threat Architecture
In its advisory, NCTAU describes a complex, multi-step attack chain used by scammers to capture biometric information and perpetrate fraud using everyday social interactions. The attackers typically use social media accounts, chat messengers, online job applications, dating applications, or direct phone calls to reach their targets. These interactions are presented as innocuous, such as for video calls, job interviews, identity checks, or just normal conversation with the intention of recording facial and vocal data.
During these interactions, victims may be asked to perform gestures commonly seen in legitimate video calls, such as look directly at the camera, blink, turn their head, or say specific phrases. However, the perpetrators record this video feed without the victim's knowledge and then use deep learning generative AI technologies to process it. Through methods such as Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) and diffusion models, the scammers create photorealistic synthetic duplicates of the target, capable of mirroring all physical and vocal attributes, such as facial expressions, blinking patterns, head movements, and even voice tones.
The advisory explicitly states that these synthetic identities can be used for a variety of fraudulent activities, such as spoofing face authentication systems, circumventing liveness detection checks, successfully completing video KYC, enabling fraudulent account recovery processes, and illegally accessing bank and financial services. NCTAU also cautions that these voice deepfakes may be paired with facial deepfakes in an attempt to undermine multi-modal authentication methods, and the occurrence of related SIM-swap attacks can eliminate the last layer of security in OTP verification and facilitate a complete account compromise.
The scale of India's Digital Financial Ecosystem
The scale of I4C's detected threat can be better understood by considering India's entire digital financial landscape. In 2025 India has witnessed over 228 billion UPI transactions, with 21.63 billion in December alone, an annual growth rate of 29% from 2024, and an active user base of over 500 million by the beginning of 2026. Furthermore, total e-KYC transactions by April 2025 have exceeded 2,393 crore, and thus, it can be seen the extent to which these aspects of finance (banking, insurance, and credit) are now conducted via remote digital verification. The transformation, although instrumental in increasing financial inclusion, has, according to some analysts, created an attack surface of historic scale. As hundreds of millions more become financially integrated via the very same channels that now form the country's infrastructure and systems of identity, the threat from identity-based fraud becomes astronomically large.
Indian government data further illustrates the extent to which such frauds are a growing concern. Cybercrime cases jumped 42% year-on-year to 2.27 million in 2024, resulting in losses amounting to nearly 228.45 billion. Within that, 1.34 million UPI cases, worth 1,087 crore, occurred in FY2024 alone, while cybercrimes in general soared from 260,000 cases in 2021 to nearly 2.8 million by 2025, totaling cybercrime losses of 22,931 crore.
How Do Deepfakes Defeat Biometric Systems?
Deepfake fraud, in particular, is extremely difficult to counteract due to the direct attack it poses on the assumptions underlying traditional verification systems. Passive techniques for verifying a live person from a static photo or video existed that primarily looked for similarities in textures, lighting, and geometrical properties or challenged subjects to perform an action in real-time. But the generation of real-time face swapping that contains blinks, head motion, and speaking can now be produced on even cheap machines. Cybercriminals can exploit these by using virtual camera drivers to "inject" the false image feed into the live verification session, nullifying any passive liveness checks. Data from the industry clearly shows the extent of this problem: iProov, a leading authenticator, documented a 7.8-fold rise in injection attacks in 2024; Jumio noted an 88% increase in deepfake-induced fraud in 2025; and voice-deepfake attacks on financial call centres saw a 6.8-fold increase in 2024.
Gartner had also predicted that 30% of organizations would have lost trust in facial verification alone by 2026, and work by Kubam (2024) confirmed a lack of multi-factor authentication such as cross-validation of biometric, document, and device integrity signals used within KYC platforms. Such fears have been corroborated by FATF's 2025 Horizon Scan, which classified deepfakes as an emerging threat to the AML/CDD framework and digital identity verification.
Recommendations by I4C
I4C's advisory goes beyond merely warning about threats and lists actionable recommendations to both institutions and citizens. Banks, NBFCs, fintech companies, and onboarding platforms have been advised to incorporate advanced deepfake and synthetic content detection techniques into their verification flows, given that first-generation liveness checks are not enough. They should employ a multi-modal strategy that considers face features along with the device, network signals, behavioral biometrics, and alignment of face and voice. They also have been advised to make a more robust upgrade of their onboarding and verification platforms, as much of the current remote verification architecture was built in a less sophisticated threat context. This aligns with the KYC Master Direction of the RBI that specifies end-to-end encryption, IP-based access controls, geotagging, and technology platforms and systems are to be upgraded frequently. Citizens are advised by I4C to keep their biometric information secure; be careful of unsolicited video calls and online interviews; keep an eye on transaction-related SMS and emails; and report suspicious instances through the National Cybercrime Reporting Portal and through the telephone number 1930. It is clarified that this advisory aims to create awareness of developing AI-based identity fraud schemes, and it is not a declaration that any specific organization, platform, or service is vulnerable.
The Legislative Dimension: India's Evolving Response to Synthetic Media
The problem highlighted by I4C is evolving in a heavily legislated environment, not a legal void. The first-ever legal definition of "synthetic media" in India came into force in the Information Technology Amendment Rules 2026 on February 20, 2026. These rules oblige significant platforms to remove deepfakes and non-consensual intimate media within three hours and two hours, respectively, or lose their safe harbor protection under Section 79 of the IT Act. While the provision focuses on harm stemming from content, this creates a new legal and normative precedent on dealing with AI-induced deception. However, financial frauds facilitated through deepfakes are not content but involve the use of remote identity verification and customer onboarding systems, which require specific technical standards. The overall policy environment when viewed in light of the FATF Horizon Scan, RBI KYC rules, and recent I4C advisory already offers significant scope to define and introduce mandatory deepfake detection and identity assurance standards even before these are explicitly legislated.
Institutional and Technical Recommendations
- For Financial Institutions and Fintech platforms: The existing verification systems (liveness detection) must be replaced with multi-layered deep-fake detection processes, including injection attack detection, behavioral biometrics, cross-modal facial and voice verification, device integrity check, and hardware attestation during onboarding itself.
- For Regulators: The RBI and Ministry of Home Affairs should work together to release technical standards that specify minimum deepfake-detection requirements for video-KYC and remote onboarding systems in line with FATF digital identity guidance and the upcoming EU AI Act.
- For researchers and academia: Dedicated studies on deepfake detection performance across varied demographic, linguistic, and regional populations of India should be prioritized. Current models are mostly trained on Western data.
- For citizens: Face recordings and other biometric information should be treated with the same caution as sensitive financial details. Be wary of unsolicited video calls, remote interviews, or verification requests from unknown people, and report suspicious activities on any account immediately via the National Cybercrime Helpline (1930) or cybercrime.gov.in.
Conclusion
The I4C advisory of June 2026 marks a critical recognition that advances in generative AI have fundamentally challenged the reliability of facial biometric authentication. For a country whose digital financial ecosystem relies heavily on remote identity verification, the implications are significant. The integrity of India's financial inclusion framework now depends on rapidly strengthening identity assurance mechanisms. Addressing this threat will require coordinated action by regulators, financial institutions, technology developers, researchers, and citizens to develop robust technical standards, enhance detection capabilities, and build public awareness at a pace matching the evolution of AI-enabled fraud.
References and Sources
- I4C / NCTAU Advisory, June 2026 — National Cybercrime Threat Analytics Unit, Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. Advisory on AI-Enabled Deepfake Identity Fraud. Issued 11 June 2026.
- shuftipro.com/blog/key-takeaways-from-fatf-horizon-scan-report-on-deepfakes
- https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/fraudsters-creating-deepfakes-to-bypass-facial-authentication-i4c/articleshow/131668958.cms
- hyperverge.co/blog/what-is-a-deepfake
- iproov.com/reports/threat-intelligence-report-2026
- arxiv.org/pdf/2601.06241
Executive Summary
A video is being widely shared on social media claiming that a leopard dragged away a passenger from a moving train. Several users are circulating the clip as a real incident. However, CyberPeace Research Wing research found the claim to be false. Our research revealed that the viral video is not real and was generated using Artificial Intelligence (AI).
Claim
An X user (formerly Twitter) shared the viral clip with the caption:“A leopard snatched a man from a moving train.”The link, archived version, and screenshot of the post are provided below.
Fact Check
On closely examining the video, several visual inconsistencies were noticed. The leopard’s body appears distorted at multiple points in the clip. In some frames, parts of the animal’s body seem to merge into the background, while in others, sections appear incomplete or disappear entirely — something not typically seen in authentic footage. In the final part of the video, where the leopard is allegedly shown attacking a passenger, the person’s hands, limbs, and body also appear blurred and distorted. Additionally, unusual and selective blurring can be observed throughout the video, indicating possible editing or AI manipulation.
To further verify the clip, we scanned the viral video using the AI detection tool Sightengine. According to the results, the video showed an 86 percent probability of being AI-generated.
As part of the research , we also analysed the clip using another AI detection platform, UndetectableTM AI, which likewise indicated that the viral video was AI-generated.
Conclusion
Our research found that the viral video claiming to show a leopard dragging away a passenger from a moving train is fake. The clip is AI-generated and does not depict a real incident.
.webp)
Introduction
Meta Platforms is experiencing a long-term surge of lawsuits that not only question particular practices, but also the very design and governance of its platforms, across the United States and beyond. This range of privacy breaches to youth mental health damages and antitrust issues are all indicative of a new era of judicial, regulatory, and civil society scrutiny of the duties of big tech firms. The main question is no longer whether harmful content is placed on platforms, but to what extent they are actively creating harm-producing environments.
From Content to Conduct: A Turning Point in Legal Strategy
Over the years, Meta and other sites have depended on legal safeguards like the US Communications Decency Act, Section 230, which protects companies against liability due to user-created content. New ways of testing that protection are now being tried.
Recent incidents have shifted off the blame of particular content and has placed the emphasis on the design of the platform. Courts are becoming more receptive to consider whether the characteristics of infinite scroll, algorithmic amplification, and engagement-based ranking systems are contributing to quantifiable harm.
In March 2026, a California jury declared that Meta and Google were negligent in creating platforms that led to youth addiction and mental health problems. The jury decided that Meta and Google were to pay off a joint sum of 6 million dollars in damages, with 70 percent of the sum being charged on Meta. It is a bellwether case, which means that it is related to about 2,000 other pending cases by parents and school districts. This change is important as it avoids legal barriers. When the liability is linked to the design decisions instead of user-created content, accountability begins to shift.
The Youth Harm Cases: A Big Tobacco Moment
Social media are becoming the subject of increased scrutiny by courts and regulators as products that have quantifiable psychological impacts. The most impactful group of lawsuits against Meta is, perhaps, the one concerning youth mental health.
A day prior to the California verdict, a New Mexico jury ordered Meta to pay $375 million in damages due to failure to safeguard young users against child predators on Instagram and Facebook, and found that the company had lied to consumers about the safety of its products and violated state consumer protection laws.
Similar arguments have been presented in other lawsuits filed by attorneys general in over 30 states, and the cases reflect previous regulatory turning points in other industries such as tobacco. The question that courts are not merely asking is whether there is harm or not. They are questioning whether businesses were aware of creating systems that capitalize on behavioral weaknesses. It has been reported in internal documents and accounts of former employees that Meta made a profit by intentionally turning its platforms into addictions to children, with algorithmic functions tailored to drive users into engagement loops, maximising time on platform to the detriment of wellbeing.
Meta has refuted these characterisations, claiming that teen mental health is multifaceted and cannot be blamed on an individual app. The companies have indicated that they will appeal the verdicts.
Privacy and Data Misuse: An Ongoing Fault Line
Platform design is not the only issue that Meta faces in legal matters. Cases centered on privacy have been a recurrent problem in the last ten years, and previous cases have claimed that Facebook monitored users even after they have logged out, scanned personal messages, and utilized personal data in a manner that was beyond user expectations. In more recent times, in April 2026, a class action suit was filed claiming that WhatsApp messages were accessed by Meta employees and third-party contractors, despite the long-standing end-to-end encryption guarantees of the platform.
These instances indicate a structural problem that is consistent. Consent mechanisms and privacy policies tend to be out of date with the reality of data use, and the gap between legal compliance and what users actually know or expect.
Antitrust: A Win, But Not a Clean One
One of the legal fronts was Meta all the way. In November 2025, a judge in the US District Court, James Boasberg, declared that Meta was not a social networking monopoly, finding that the FTC did not demonstrate that the acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp by the company were against the antitrust law. The decision has since been appealed by the FTC, which continues to argue that "Meta broke our antitrust laws by acquiring Instagram and WhatsApp, and that American consumers have been harmed by it.
The case also demonstrates a significant drawback of the antitrust law as a form of regulation of tech companies. By the time the trial occurred five years after the lawsuit was initiated, the social media market had evolved such that Tik Tok was a major competitor, undermining the market definition claims of the FTC. The structural issue of whether a few platforms are too powerful in the communication of the masses is not answered, although the legal claim in this instance might have been unsuccessful.
Policy Takeaways: What This Means Going Forward
The accumulating number of lawsuits against Meta provides a number of valuable lessons to policymakers.
- Platform design has become a regulatory topic. Laws should go beyond content regulation and deal with the construction of systems. Engagement maximising features can also increase harm, and this trade-off must be governed explicitly.
- Transparency should be mandatory and not discretionary. Privacy policies and disclosures on platforms are usually too complicated or ambiguous. Regulators might be required to make more transparent and standardised disclosures regarding the use of data and the operation of recommendation systems.
- Section 230 safeguards are under reinterpretation. Courts are becoming open to restrict immunity in cases where the harm is associated with the conduct of the platform and not the content of the user. This would redefine the law of all digital platforms, and not only Meta.
- Cross-border coordination is needed. Meta is an international company, yet the regulatory reaction is still divided. This will require more coordination among jurisdictions to guarantee uniform enforcement and to eliminate regulatory arbitrage.
Conclusion
The lawsuits of Meta are not single cases. They are a more general reconsideration of the regulation of digital platforms and the accountability of those responsible when design decisions have harm at scale. In the wider context of the technology ecosystem, the implications are structural. Courts are starting to question not only what is hosted on them, but how they work and why they are constructed in the manner they are.
The age of minimal responsibility is being supplanted by a more challenging requirement: that platforms should foresee, quantify, and alleviate the harms they produce. The result of these cases will not only decide the future of Meta in terms of legal matters. They will influence the regulations of the digital economy in the years to come.
References
- https://www.npr.org/2026/03/25/nx-s1-5746125/meta-youtube-social-media-trial-verdict
- https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/jury-finds-meta-and-youtube-liable-in-landmark-youth-addiction-case
- https://www.cbsnews.com/news/meta-ftc-whatsapp-instagram/
- https://www.cnbc.com/2026/01/20/ftc-appeals-metaruling-antitrust-instagram-whatsapp.html
- https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czjw0zgz9zyo
