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

Deutsche Presse-AgenturEconomy & business

Unter einem offiziell wirkenden Logo des Sportartikel-Herstellers Adidas erhalten Nutzer im Internet ein Angebot: Wer ein paar Fragen beantworte, könne möglicherweise einen "250EUR Gutschein von Adidas zu erhalten" (sic). Im Anschluss daran werden Nutzer dazu aufgefordert, den Artikel zu teilen und persönliche Daten einzugeben

Publisher’s rating: "preise-hx.com" ist keine Webseite von Adidas und bietet kein Gewinnspiel des Unternehmens an. Niemand, der dort mitmacht, bekommt von Adidas einen Gutschein geschickt. Bei dieser Webseite geht es darum, in betrügerischer Weise persönliche Daten von Nutzern abzugreifen ("Phishing").

The review concerns an online offer using an Adidas logo that promised a possible €250 voucher after users answered questions, then prompted them to share the offer and provide personal information. It identifies the website as preise-hx.com, matching the site in the claim. To check the offer’s connection to Adidas, the dpa says it contacted the company. An Adidas spokesperson said the company did not operate preise-hx.com and had no relationship with those responsible. The review also reports that the site lacked an imprint and notes that the Adidas name was absent from its web address. The review describes the offer as a way to obtain users’ personal data deceptively. It says people who had submitted information told dpa they received repeated calls from unknown numbers. These reports are attributed to affected users; the excerpt does not provide their number or further independent verification.

Fact CrescendoEconomy & business

Claim: RBI decided to close 9 banks

Publisher’s rating: FALSE

The claim concerned a social-media post saying the Reserve Bank of India would soon permanently close nine banks. The review describes a Facebook post shared on October 1, 2019, which listed banks including UCO Bank, IDBI, Bank of Maharashtra, Andhra Bank, Indian Overseas Bank, Central Bank of India, Dena Bank and United Bank of India, and urged customers to withdraw their money and close their accounts. The review says the post circulated amid confusion after the central government announced plans to combine 10 public-sector banks into four. The review distinguishes that proposed consolidation from closure. It notes that Dena Bank and United Bank of India were among the banks included in the government’s list for consolidation, and says that treating this as a plan to close them was incorrect. It also reports that the RBI promptly denied the specific rumor that it planned to permanently close nine banks. On that basis, the review concludes that the social-media claim was false and advises readers not to believe it.

NewtralEconomy & business

Uno de cada tres desempleados nuevos en España es andaluz. Dejamos el gobierno en Andalucía con 789.000 parados y ahora hay 806.090. Un año perdido del gobierno.

Publisher’s rating: Engañoso

The review examines Susana Díaz’s criticism of Juanma Moreno’s management of Andalusia, comparing unemployment figures from her last month as regional president, December 2018, with January 2020. It says the comparison is misleading because it puts two different months with different seasonal patterns side by side: December is typically helped by Christmas hiring, while January unemployment often rises when the holiday period ends. (S1: “La expresidenta de la Junta ha publicado un tuit en el que confronta las cifras de desempleo de su último mes en la presidencia (diciembre de 2018) con las de enero de 2020. Sin embargo, los datos no son comparables porque se refieren a meses diferentes, que tienen dinámicas propias.”) The review reports that Spain’s unemployment rose by 90,248 people in January 2020, including 28,156 in Andalusia, where the total was 806,900. It says this supports the one-in-three proportion for that month. The review also reports that the tweet’s unemployment figures were correct, but argues that comparing December 2018 with January 2020 creates a misleading impression. Notably, the review quotes the tweet’s Andalusian total as 806,900, whereas the supplied claim gives 806,090. (S1: “De estas, 28.156 se registraron en Andalucía, donde la cifra global de parados quedó en 806.900.”; “Todos las cifras que aporta Susana Díaz en el tuit son correctas, pero la conclusión es engañosa pues equipara el dato de diciembre y el de enero.”) To assess the trend using comparable periods, the review gives same-month and annual comparisons. It reports 788,767 unemployed people in Andalusia in December 2018 and 777,934 in December 2019, a decrease of 10,833; it also says January 2020 had 2,673 fewer unemployed people than January 2019. As a separate check, it cites the Labour Force Survey (EPA), reporting a reduction of 10,400 unemployed people between the fourth quarters of 2018 and 2019. These comparisons underpin the review’s conclusion that the figures do not support the tweet’s implication of a year of worsening unemployment. (S1: “Si se comparan dos períodos homologables, las cifras son positivas: en diciembre de 2018 había 788.767 parados y justo un año después este dato fue de 777.934. Es decir, 10.833 personas menos. Esta proporción también se mantiene en el mes de enero, donde la diferencia entre 2019 y 2020 es de 2.673 desempleados menos”; “Según este sondeo, el paro se redujo entre el cuarto trimestres de 2018 y el de 2019 en 10.400 personas.”)

Fact CrescendoEconomy & business

Claim: Income Tax department seized Rs 65 crores from actor Vijay

Publisher’s rating: FALSE HEADLINE

Fact Crescendo examined a Samayam Tamil Facebook post saying Rs 65 crore had been seized in a raid and a related article whose headline gave a different figure, Rs 77 crore. The review says these headlines were confusing about both the amount and whose money had been seized, and could give readers the impression that the money was taken from actor Vijay. Its conclusion addresses the claim that the Rs 65 crore was seized from Vijay: the review says that figure was wrong and that the seizure described in the article was from a financier, not the actor. To check the report, the review says it compared the Facebook and website headlines with how other media reported the story and sought the Income Tax Department’s official press statement. As quoted in the review, the statement said the department had seized no money from the actor, while Rs 77 crore had been seized from the film’s financier. The review therefore distinguishes the actor, whose remuneration was still under examination, from the financier, from whom the stated seizure was made. The review’s finding is that the Facebook headline’s Rs 65 crore figure and its implication that the money came from Vijay were misleading. The article’s own headline used Rs 77 crore, but, according to the review, its body attributed that seizure to the financier of a recent Vijay film. The review also notes the discrepancy between the two Samayam Tamil headlines rather than treating them as one consistent account.