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.

7,096 published reviews in this topic

dpa Deutsche Presse-AgenturEconomy & business

Auf der Internetseite werden Hausboote zum Verleih angeboten.

Publisher’s rating: Die Seite ist eine Täuschung. Die Bilder mit den dargestellten Hausbooten sind offenbar allesamt Kopien. Die Angaben im Impressum sind nicht korrekt. Die Polizei warnt dringend vor Buchungen.

The claim concerns dein-hausbooturlaub.de, which advertised houseboats for holiday rental. The dpa investigation reports that the site listed at least twelve boats, with nightly prices starting at €119, and offered them for booking in several locations. It found evidence that the listings were deceptive: boat photographs had been copied, and the site’s legal notice contained inaccurate details. The investigation describes checking both the images and business information. Photos of many listed boats appeared on other websites. In one example, the boat “Maja” was advertised as being in Waren (Müritz), but another provider offered it as moored in Rheinsberg. The dpa also found that a photo on the suspect site had been altered: lettering identifying the real provider was painted over, and the crop removed a Nautal watermark. The legal notice offered a separate clue. Its company-register number had been copied from another provider’s legal notice, and the register itself contained only that other provider. The excerpt also reports that police in Neubrandenburg and Neuruppin had received at least ten criminal complaints connected to the site, and that the police had warned about houseboat fraud after initial complaints on July 5, 2021. These details support the claim that this specific rental site was deceptive; they do not establish that every houseboat rental website is fraudulent.

Fact CrescendoEconomy & business

Claim: Misinformation that TN govt procuring petrol for rs 52 per litre and selling high price I ரூ.52க்கு வாங்கி 100க்கு பெட்ரோலை விற்பனை செய்யும் தமிழ்நாடு அரசு

Publisher’s rating: False

The claim under review was that Tamil Nadu bought petrol from the central government for about ₹52 a litre and resold it for about ₹100, supposedly making a large profit. The review traced this claim to social-media posts, including one that listed a central-government price of ₹52.75 and a Tamil Nadu price of ₹99.82. It says the state does not procure and sell petrol: oil companies sell fuel to petrol-pump dealers, while central and state governments levy taxes on it. To test the price figures, the review used Indian Oil’s price breakdown for Delhi on July 1, 2021, and compared it with the price in Chennai that day. It reports that Delhi’s ₹98.81-per-litre price comprised a base price of ₹39.39, central taxes and cess of ₹32.90, and dealer commission of ₹3.92, totalling ₹76.01. For Chennai, it reports a pump price of ₹99.80; subtracting the same base price, dealer commission and central taxes left ₹23.79. These figures contradict the post’s assertion that the state bought petrol at ₹52 and added ₹48 as its own tax or profit. The review also examined the claim that states, rather than the central government, imposed most of the tax. It reports that Tamil Nadu levied 15% VAT plus an additional ₹13.02 per litre, and that the state’s revenue was about ₹24 per litre. It concludes that the viral post’s account of state procurement, resale and profit was false. The review’s evidence supports that conclusion about the specific claim; it does not establish that petrol prices or taxes were identical across states.

FACTLYEconomy & business

RBI has launched new notes of denomination Rs. 5000, Rupee 1 and new coins of denomination Rs. 150, Rs. 100 and Rs. 20

Publisher’s rating: FALSE

The post claimed that the Reserve Bank of India had launched Rs. 5,000 and one-rupee notes and coins worth Rs. 150, Rs. 100 and Rs. 20. The review distinguishes the pictured items rather than treating them as one new RBI issue: it says the RBI had not launched a Rs. 5,000 note, while the one-rupee note was real but issued by the Government of India. [S1]

Fact Crescendo Sri LankaEconomy & business

FACT CHECK: මසකට දෙලක්ෂ පනස්දහසක අතිකාල දීමනාවක් ගන්නා වෛද්‍යවරයකුගේ වැටුප් වාර්තාවක්?

Publisher’s rating: Misleading

The review investigated a social-media post that portrayed a doctor at Kalutara Hospital as receiving Rs. 251,028 in overtime and Rs. 26,098.50 for working public holidays in a single month. It said the salary slip itself was genuine, but the post’s presentation of those amounts as one month’s payments left out that they covered two months. To check the figures, the review examined a Health Ministry circular that temporarily changed doctors’ overtime arrangements during the COVID-19 period, effective from May 1 to August 31. The circular set a monthly ceiling of 120 overtime hours for doctors in hospital units and branches, and up to 180 hours for officers in field services. Because the slip showed 228 overtime hours, the review concluded that the amount could not represent one month’s overtime under those limits. The review also reported contacting the Kalutara Hospital director and accounts section. The director confirmed the slip belonged to the hospital’s medical officer of health and said overtime and public-holiday payments for two months had been combined. An accounts officer explained that the 228 overtime hours were for April and May, with Rs. 251,028 calculated at Rs. 1,100 per hour. The officer also said the six public-holiday days represented two months’ payments; the monthly allowance was limited to three days. Thus, the slip was authentic, but the social-media claim misrepresented the period covered by the payments.

YouturnEconomy & business

சனிக்கிழமை நிலவரப்படி பல்வேறு வரிகளுடன் மத்திய அரசு 52.75ரூபாயை ஒரு லிட்டர் பெட்ரோலுக்கான விலையாக நிர்ணயித்து உள்ளது. மாநில அரசின் வரிகளுடன் ஒரு லிட்டர் பெட்ரோல் 99.82 ரூபாய்க்கு வாகன ஓட்டிகளுக்கு விற்கப்படுவதாக தெரிவிக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது ”

Publisher’s rating: Fake

Fact CrescendoEconomy & business

എസ്ബിഐ ഉപഭോക്താക്കൾക്ക് നാളെ മുതൽ മാസത്തിൽ നാല് തവണ മാത്രമേ സൗജന്യ എടിഎം ഉപയോഗിക്കാൻ പറ്റൂ. പിന്നീടുള്ള ഓരോ ഇടപാടിനും 15 രൂപയും ജിഎസ്ടിയും സ്വന്തം പോക്കറ്റിൽ നിന്ന് ബാങ്കിന് അങ്ങോട്ട് കൊടുക്കണം.

Publisher’s rating: FALSE

Fact CrescendoEconomy & business

Claim: 2020 dated news shared now that DMK govt hiked VAT on fuel

Publisher’s rating: False

The claim concerned a report about a fuel VAT increase that was circulating as though it described the DMK government’s actions after it took office in 2021. Fact Crescendo says it investigated the circulating post after readers asked whether it was true and after finding it being shared on Facebook. Its central finding was that the DMK government had not announced an increase in VAT on petrol or diesel between taking office and July 2, 2021: “ஆட்சிக்கு வந்தது முதலாக, இதுநாள் (02.07.2021) வரையிலும் திமுக அரசு வெளியிடவில்லை.” (The article says no such announcement had been issued by the DMK government up to that date.) The review traced the post to a screenshot of an India Today report. It says the reviewers searched using the screenshot’s headline and found that the report had appeared on May 3, 2020: “அந்த ஸ்கிரின்ஷாட்டில் உள்ள தலைப்பின் அடிப்படையில் தகவல் தேடினோம். இதன்படி, மேற்கண்ட செய்தி கடந்த 2020ம் ஆண்டு மே மாதம் 3ம் தேதி (03.05.2020) அன்று வெளியானதாக விவரம் கிடைத்தது.” The decisive chronology is that the review identifies the AIADMK—not the DMK—as the party in power at the time: “அந்த காலக்கட்டத்தில் அதிமுக அரசே ஆட்சியில் இருந்தது. 2021 மே மாதத்தில்தான் திமுக ஆட்சிக்கு வந்தது.” Thus, the post used an older report and presented it in a way that could make it seem like new news about the DMK. The review also distinguishes this claim from a separate debate about the DMK’s election promise to reduce fuel prices. It says that debate arose after the government said there was no opportunity to reduce prices, but explicitly notes that it was not connected to the report under investigation: “எனினும், இதற்கும் நாம் ஆய்வு செய்யும் தகவலுக்கும் தொடர்பில்லை.” The conclusion is therefore about the misleading presentation of the 2020 report, not a finding that the separate price-reduction discussion proved a VAT increase.