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.

7,100 published reviews in this topic

APA - Austria Presse AgenturEconomy & business

Banken können Negativzinsen auf Erspartes verlangen.

Publisher’s rating: Das ist überwiegend falsch. Spareinlagen sind durch ein OGH-Urteil von 2009 vor Negativzinsen geschützt. Für Girokonten gibt es jedoch keine eindeutige Regelung.

The review examines whether Austrian banks could pass the cost of negative interest on to savers. It notes that negative rates were already being applied by banks in Germany, but focuses its assessment on the legal position in Austria. The key distinction is between private savings deposits and current accounts, rather than all money held at a bank being treated alike. [S1: “In Deutschland ist dies bereits Realität.”; “Kann das auch in Österreich kommen?”] For private savings deposits, the review relies on a 2009 Austrian Supreme Court ruling. It reports that the court held that zero interest—and therefore negative interest—was not permissible for such deposits. The court’s stated reasoning was that a savings deposit is intended as an investment serving a function of gain and wealth formation. [S1: “Der Oberste Gerichtshof (OHG) in Österreich hat 2009 festgehalten, dass Nullzinsen (und damit auch Negativzinsen) auf private Spareinlagen nicht zulässig sind.”; “der Zweck jeder Spareinlage sei eine Anlage, und als solche verfolge sie eine Gewinn- und Vermögensbildungsfunktion.”] That ruling does not settle the position for current accounts: the review says they are not explicitly addressed in the judgment and describes their status as unresolved. It also reports that the Austrian Chamber of Labour had called for legislation barring negative interest on current accounts, while the Austrian Economic Chamber saw no immediate reason for such a rule, saying banks were not treating the issue as a concern. Thus, the review’s account supports a distinction between protected private savings deposits and a less clearly regulated category of accounts. [S1: “Diese werden im OGH-Urteil nicht explizit erwähnt.”; “Die Arbeiterkammer hat hierzu im Februar gefordert, auch für Girokonten eine gesetzliche Regelung zu schaffen, die Negativzinsen auf dieses Bankenprodukt verbietet.”; “mit der Begründung, dass Negativzinsen auf Girokonten bei den Banken kein Thema seien.”]

Vishvas NewsEconomy & business

उद्योगपती रतन टाटा यांचे प्रेरणादायी विधान

Publisher’s rating: FALSE

The review investigated a message circulating on social media in Ratan Tata’s name. It presented the message as a true and motivating response to depressing news, and attributed its sharing to actor Arshad Warsi. The review describes the message as arguing that experts’ warnings about economic harm from coronavirus should not be trusted, invoking Japan after the Second World War and Arab countries’ conflict with Israel as comparisons. The review concludes that Tata did not make or write the message. The article says Tata publicly denied authorship on his verified Twitter account. His denial, reproduced in the review, asks people to verify messages circulated on WhatsApp and social platforms and says he would communicate any statement through his official channels. The article also reproduces a tweet dated April 11, 2020. This is direct evidence about the disputed attribution, rather than evidence about whether the message’s broader economic arguments are true. The excerpt does not describe a detailed verification process beyond reporting the viral message, Warsi’s sharing, and Tata’s denial. It therefore supports the conclusion that the statement was falsely attributed to Tata, but does not establish further facts about the message’s authorship or the claims it makes about history and the economy.

FACTLYEconomy & business

Indian Railways is deducting around 20 rupees on every cancelled ticket

Publisher’s rating: MISLEADING

The review examined a social-media claim that Indian Railways was deducting around 20 rupees from every cancelled ticket. It found that this was not the case: the reported deduction concerned the convenience fee on e-tickets booked through IRCTC, rather than a charge taken from every cancelled ticket. The review states, “Convenience fee is charged on Railways e-tickets booked through IRCTC website. So, the deduction is not made on all the tickets.” It adds that tickets booked at a counter could receive a full refund. The setting was the cancellation of passenger train services through 3 May 2020. According to the review, Indian Railways said passengers whose trains were cancelled would receive the full fare, while the convenience fee would not be refunded. It also describes IRCTC’s guidance for tickets cancelled during this period: users were advised not to cancel eligible e-tickets themselves because they would be cancelled automatically; if someone had already cancelled and received only a partial refund, IRCTC said it would process the remaining refund automatically. Thus, the review distinguishes a non-refunded booking fee from a deduction of around 20 rupees on every ticket. The review reports around 94 lakh cancelled ticket bookings in total: 55 lakh for travel between 22 March and 14 April, and 39 lakh for travel between 15 April and 3 May. The 39 lakh figure referred to bookings in the latter travel period, not to a finding that every one of those tickets incurred the alleged deduction. Its conclusion is that the blanket claim about a deduction on every cancelled ticket was misleading.