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.

7,095 published reviews in this topic

dpaEconomy & business

Bien qu'annoncés de tailles différentes, les gobelets de Starbucks contiennent la même quantité de café.

Publisher’s rating: Cette vidéo ne prouve pas que Starbucks emploie des pratiques frauduleuses. Les gobelets examinés par la dpa contenaient des proportions de café différentes.

The claim concerned a Facebook video in which a man appeared to test three differently sized Starbucks cups. The video suggested that they held the same volume of liquid despite their different advertised sizes, implying that customers were being misled. The review says the video’s origin was not clearly established and that it had appeared on YouTube on May 29, 2022, before disappearing. To test the claim, dpa obtained Starbucks cups from a store in Belgium and repeated the experiment. The review identifies the sizes as tall (12 oz/355 ml), grande (16 oz/473 ml), and venti (20 oz/590 ml), noting that the chain’s cup sizes were standardized worldwide. When the cups were filled with water, the liquid reached the tall cup’s rim but sat below the rim in the larger cups: two centimeters below in the grande and about three and a half centimeters below in the venti. The review also calculated cup volumes from measured cup dimensions, using a formula for the volume of a truncated cone. Its calculations yielded 457 ml for tall, 578 ml for grande, and 694 ml for venti—different capacities, not equal ones. The review notes that these calculated capacities exceed Starbucks’ advertised drink amounts, but explains that drinks are not normally filled to the brim. With the advertised amounts poured in, it found space remaining at the top of each cup; accounting for that margin brought the results roughly in line with the stated amounts. Thus the observed differences in fill level do not establish that the cups contain equal amounts of coffee or that Starbucks manipulated their sizes.

Fact CrescendoEconomy & business

Claim: sbi not given 60000 crore loan to adani coal mine in australia

Publisher’s rating: Missing Context

The claim concerns SBI allegedly giving the Adani Group ₹60,000 crore for its Australian coal-mine project. Fact Crescendo’s investigation distinguishes that figure from the amount reported as SBI’s proposed support: it says reports described a loan of US$1 billion, equivalent in the article to roughly ₹5,000–6,000 crore, and that the funding had not been disbursed in full. Thus, the ₹60,000 crore figure is not supported by the account of the reported SBI financing. The review explains that the Adani Group obtained a contract in 2010 to carry out production at the Carmichael coal mine in Queensland, Australia. It says the group had not publicly stated the project’s total estimated cost, while social-media posts were presenting ₹60,000 crore as the SBI loan amount. The article identifies this as a conflation: it reports that some people described ₹60,000 crore as the project’s total cost, whereas the reported SBI loan was a much smaller US$1 billion. The fact-check says it also consulted material on the Stop Adani website, Adani’s explanations about borrowing from Indian banks, and the group’s financial statements. It reports finding no mention in the financial statements of a ₹60,000 crore SBI loan. Its conclusion is that the social-media claim that SBI had provided that amount for the Australian mine was unreliable; the account does not say the proposed, smaller loan had been fully paid.

המשרוקית של גלובסEconomy & business

"רופא מנתח: שכר חודשי של 34 אלף שקל בממוצע, שוחט: שכר חודשי של 100 אלף שקל בממוצע"

Publisher’s rating: מטעה

The post by the Yisrael Beiteinu party presented two figures side by side: an average monthly salary of 34,000 shekels for a surgeon and 100,000 shekels for a slaughterer. The review investigated whether slaughterers’ average pay really was nearly three times that of a surgeon. It found that the 100,000-shekel figure did not describe the average slaughterer: according to the party’s explanation, it referred to a senior slaughter-team leader working abroad. The review also distinguished this overseas work from slaughtering in Israel, for which it found no official salary data. To assess the overseas figure, the review consulted attorney Amichai Filber, who had held roles in kosher-certification administration and overseas slaughter at the Rabbinate. He described teams of 10–20 people, most in junior roles, and three senior staff. Junior workers were paid $3,000–$5,000 monthly during the slaughter seasons, which together lasted only 8–10 months of the year. Filber said a team leader could earn as much as $30,000 gross per month, but estimated there were only several dozen such leaders. The review cited a Rabbinate representative’s estimate of about 50. For slaughterers working in Israel, the review found no official salary figures. It pointed instead to media reports: one quoted a slaughterer’s pay as 7,000–12,000 shekels per month, and another described a group earning 10,000 shekels. By contrast, the surgeon figure was supported by a Finance Ministry report on public healthcare salary expenditure in 2020, which put the average monthly pay of a physician who was not an intern at about 34,000 shekels. The comparison therefore set a public-sector doctors’ average against a high-end overseas team-leader salary, not against the average slaughterer’s pay. The review concluded that the post’s surgeon figure was accurate but its presentation of slaughterers’ pay as an average was misleading.

FACTLYEconomy & business

Subsidised loans available under the Central Government scheme – ‘Pradhan Mantri Loan Yojana’.

Publisher’s rating: FALSE

The claim concerns a social-media post promoting a scheme called ‘Pradhan Mantri Loan Yojana’ and promising subsidised loans of up to ₹20 lakh. FACTLY’s review says it checked whether this was a Central Government scheme, rather than whether other government-backed lending or subsidy programmes exist. It reports that no such scheme was listed on government portals and that the Press Information Bureau (PIB) had publicly denied that a Central Government scheme with this name existed. The review also describes checks on the post’s contact and promotional links. FACTLY says it tried calling the number provided, but it was switched off; the app-store link led to a private application, and the website linked from a Facebook page promoting the scheme was not working. These observations raise concerns about the post’s supporting materials, but the review’s central finding is specifically about the absence of the named scheme in official sources and PIB’s denial. The conclusion is limited to the named ‘Pradhan Mantri Loan Yojana’: the supplied review does not establish that no government lending support or subsidies of any kind are available. It says the claim that this named Central Government scheme offers subsidised loans is unsupported and false.