Skip to main content

PeakMetrics / Fact Checks

Economy & business fact checks

Explore claims publishers have checked about economy & business. Read their original ratings and follow the evidence.

7,093 published reviews in this topic

Factcrescendo Sri LankaEconomy & business

The government imposed a new disembarkation levy of USD 60, meaning anyone departing from Katunayake Bandaranaike International Airport would be subject to this additional departure tax.

Publisher’s rating: Misleading

The review found that the USD 60 embarkation levy was not a newly imposed charge. It reports that the Director of Airports and Aviation Services said the levy applied to passengers departing from Bandaranaike International Airport in Katunayake, had remained unchanged since 2019, and was included in the ticket price rather than charged separately. That makes the claim misleading insofar as it presented the levy as a new additional departure tax. The review also checked the government notification issued on January 11. It says the notification set a USD 30 levy for departures from Ratmalana for one year beginning March 27, and from Jaffna for six months beginning January 12; it specified an exemption for Mattala and a USD 60 levy for departures from other airports or shipping ports. Those provisions describe different airport-specific rates and exemptions, not a new USD 60 charge at Katunayake. The review further reports that the Presidential Media Division said the levy rates had not changed.

Fact Crescendo Sri LankaEconomy & business

කටුනායක ගුවන් තොටුපළින් ගුවන් යානයෙන් පිටත්වන පුද්ගලයන්ට ඩොලර් 60 ක නව බද්දක් පනවා නැහැ!

Publisher’s rating: Misleading

The claim concerns whether passengers leaving Katunayake’s Bandaranaike International Airport were newly made to pay a US$60 embarkation levy. The review says a report and social-media posts gave that impression, then investigates whether the levy was new and what the relevant government notice actually covered. The review describes a notice signed by President and Finance Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and issued on January 11. It says the notice set a US$30 levy for departures from Ratmalana for a specified period beginning January 12, 2023, and a US$30 levy for departures from Jaffna for a separate specified period. The notice also exempted departures from Mattala for two years from the start of its operations. Although the notice mentioned a US$60 levy for departures from other Sri Lankan airports or seaports, the review’s evidence indicates that this amount was not newly imposed on Katunayake passengers. To check the history and application of the levy, the review says it examined earlier notices, contacted Jaffna airport, sought confirmation from the President’s Media Division, and asked Airport and Aviation Services Sri Lanka about Katunayake. It reports that the Media Division said the levy had not changed, and that the airport company’s director said the US$60 charge had applied to domestic and foreign passengers departing Katunayake since 2019 and was included in the ticket. The investigation’s central distinction is therefore between an existing charge and a newly introduced one.

maharat-newsEconomy & business

هل تعدل شركة توتال عن التنقيب عن الغاز جنوباً​ بعد حادثة العاقبية؟

Publisher’s rating: غير صحيح

The claim concerned whether TotalEnergies would withdraw from gas exploration off southern Lebanon after the Aqibieh incident. The review says the concern arose after a report raised questions about whether the incident might reduce the company’s willingness to work off Block 4, amid fears of friction with local residents. It says that report circulated on news sites and WhatsApp groups. Rita Shaheen, media adviser to caretaker Energy Minister Walid Fayyad, rejected the claim, saying TotalEnergies was keen to begin exploration and had a team following the work from Lebanon. The review also reports that TotalEnergies had not announced a halt or suspension of its project with Lebanon. As evidence of continuing preparations, the review quotes a company statement published on December 22, 2022: a team of more than 20 employees was expected to be based in Beirut by the end of March; a tender process for a drilling rig was under way, with selection expected in the first quarter of 2023; and suppliers had received advance requests for well equipment. It also says marine resources were being mobilized for environmental studies, planned for completion by the end of June 2023, and that TotalEnergies and ENI were working with the Lebanese Petroleum Administration to prepare the well for drilling in 2023. These reported plans support the review’s conclusion that the company had not announced a retreat; they describe planned steps, not proof that every milestone was subsequently completed.

dpaEconomy & business

Deze berekening laat zien dat de inflatie veel hoger ligt dan 9,7%.

Publisher’s rating: De berekening op sociale media toont een procentuele prijsstijging van een aantal willekeurige producten: dat is geen inflatieberekening. Om de inflatie te berekenen wordt ook gekeken naar de consumentenprijsindex (het CPI). Deze index wordt dan weer bepaald aan de hand van wegingsfactoren van specifieke productgroepen. De meest recente inflatieberekening van december 2022 kwam overigens op 9,6 procent uit, niet 9,7 procent.

The claim concerns a social-media calculation that added price changes for selected groceries and presented them as evidence that Dutch inflation was far above 9.7%. The review describes the posts as comparing products including peanut butter and coffee milk, with the stated conclusion that inflation was around 30%. It explains that the calculation drew on “random products in random supermarkets,” and that the posts did not make clear where or when the prices came from. That makes the calculation a comparison of particular items, not a measure of overall inflation. [S1: “Uit de optelsom van de prijzen van een aantal producten, zoals pindakaas en koffiemelk, zou moeten blijken dat de inflatie niet bij 9,7 procent ligt, maar rond de 30.”; “baseert zich naar eigen zeggen op 'zomaar wat producten in willekeurige supermarkten' en vergelijkt de prijzen van januari 2023 met de prijzen van dezelfde producten 'ongeveer een jaar geleden'. Van waar en wanneer de cijfers precies komen is dus niet duidelijk.”] The review says that the particular receipt comparison also contained a calculation error: its price difference was €7.42, which the article reports as a 45% increase from 2022 to 2023 after recalculation. But even a correctly calculated percentage change for those items would not establish the inflation rate. The review describes inflation as measured by comparing the consumer price index (CPI) with the CPI at the same time the previous year. The CPI represents a basket of goods and services and uses expenditure weights to reflect the relative importance of product groups in household spending. [S1: “Het verschil in prijs tussen beide bonnetjes is 7,42 euro, wat uitkomt op een prijsstijging van 45% in 2023 ten opzichte van 2022.”; “Bovendien is het onvoldoende om een werkelijke uitspraak over de inflatie te doen.”; “De inflatie wordt gemeten aan de hand van de CPI ten opzichte van de CPI op hetzelfde moment het jaar ervoor.”; “Voordat je dus kunt bepalen wat de inflatie is, moet eerst de CPI berekend worden. Dat gebeurt aan de hand van wegingsfactoren”] The review gives energy as an example of why a few grocery prices cannot represent the weighted index: in October 2022, energy was 173% more expensive than a year earlier, while overall inflation was 14.3%. It reports that the latest inflation figure at the time of the posts was 9.6% for December 2022, rather than 9.7%; it also gives a 2022 annual inflation figure of 10.0%. These figures and the weighting method address the claim by distinguishing the changing prices of selected products from the CPI-based measure of inflation. [S1: “Zo was in oktober 2022 energie 173 procent duurder dan in oktober 2021. Maar de totale inflatie lag in die maand bij 14,3 procent.”; “Het toen meest recente inflatiecijfer kwam uit december 2022 en was 9,6 procent. Ook de jaarinflatie van 2022 was toen net berekend: die ligt bij 10,0 procent.”]

Fact Crescendo Sri LankaEconomy & business

WhaleBoost මව් සමාගම ලෙස දක්වා තිබූ සිංගප්පූරු ආයතනය, එම ව්‍යාපෘතිය ගැන කියන කතාව!

Publisher’s rating: Misleading

The review examined claims promoting WhaleBoost as an e-commerce opportunity where users could earn money by completing seller-rating tasks for marketplaces including eBay, Alibaba, Amazon, Rakuten and Walmart. Its central finding about the Singapore connection is specific: WhaleBoost’s materials identified GLOBAL ADVERTISING Pte Ltd as its parent company, but the Singapore company contacted by the reviewers said it had no association with WhaleBoost. The review therefore did not treat the use of a Singapore company’s details as proof that the company operated or endorsed the project. To check the company details, the reviewers looked up GLOBAL ADVERTISING Pte Ltd and reported that it was registered in Singapore on December 3, 2020, remained active, and was registered under number 202039200Z for advertising and management consultancy. They also reported that the company was associated with Global Training Services Pte Ltd. The review says that, after asking whether the company had any connection to WhaleBoost, it received a denial. This supports the claim that the named Singapore company rejected an association, while distinguishing that denial from evidence that WhaleBoost itself was a legitimate business. The review also described other concerns about WhaleBoost’s presentation: reverse-image searches reportedly found that images presented as founders were stock photos or appeared online under other names; its website listed a Gmail contact address; and the review said it found no official information identifying a company or people running the project. It concluded that the project was not trustworthy. These are findings reported by Fact Crescendo, not independent checks performed for this summary.