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.

7,091 published reviews in this topic

Fact Crescendo Sri LankaEconomy & business

මාවතගම සමූපකාර සමිතිය විසින් කොකාකෝලා වලට සමාන පානයක් නිෂ්පාදනය කර නැහැ!

Publisher’s rating: False

The claim concerned social media posts saying the NPP-led Mawathagama cooperative had produced and introduced a low-cost cola called “Samoopa Cola.” The posts included an image and a claim that a 1.5-litre bottle cost Rs. 175. The review reports that it checked shops in different parts of Sri Lanka for a drink sold under that name, but did not find one. The publisher also says it asked the Mawathagama cooperative’s chairman about the claim. According to the review, he said the cooperative had neither introduced nor manufactured a drink called “Samoopa Cola,” and described the claim as false. This is direct evidence from the cooperative’s representative as reported by the fact-check, rather than evidence of an independent product test. The review further reports using reverse-image search on the picture accompanying the posts. It identified the image as an edited version of a photograph of Kroger BigK Cola. Together, the reported absence of the product from the shop checks, the chairman’s denial, and the image’s identified source support the conclusion that the posts did not show a cola made by the Mawathagama cooperative.

Fact Crescendo Sri LankaEconomy & business

ශ්‍රී ලංකාවේ ඇතැම් ආහාර ද්‍රව්‍ය සඳහා පනවන ලද නව බද්දක් පිළිබඳව නොමඟ යවන සුළු ප්‍රකාශ පෙළක්!

Publisher’s rating: Misleading

The review examined social media claims that Sri Lanka had introduced a new, higher special levy on foods including fruit and fish from December 1. It traced the claim to Finance Ministry Gazette No. 2360/52, issued on November 30, 2023, and compared it with earlier gazette notices. The review reports that the earlier notice, Gazette No. 2308/17, had already imposed levies on listed imported goods from November 30, 2022, for a year, through November 30, 2023. It describes the 2023 notice as extending the existing levy rather than creating a new one. The comparison found that the 2023 notice kept the same list of goods as the 2022 notice, with a specific change: yogurt and Sarda spp. fish, which had been removed from the taxable list in January 2023, were included again. The review says the extension was to December 31, 2024. It also reports that the Finance Ministry rejected the circulating claims as false and misleading, and quotes a retired Inland Revenue Department commissioner explaining that extending the period for collecting a tax is a routine procedure. The key qualification is that the levy did continue to apply to the listed goods; the review’s finding is that describing the 2023 notice as a newly imposed levy misrepresented that continuation. It identifies the return of yogurt and Sarda spp. to the list as the notable change, rather than a general new tax on the foods covered by the prior notice.

Fact Crescendo Sri LankaEconomy & business

ගෑස් සිලින්ඩර හැඬලයේ ඇති සලකුණු බොදවීම් නිසා ලිට්‍රෝ ආයතනය විසින් ගෑස් සිලින්ඩර ප්‍රතික්ෂේප කරන බවට අසත්‍ය ප්‍රචාර!

Publisher’s rating: False

The review investigates social-media allegations that Litro would refuse to refill cylinders when handle lettering or markings had faded, leaving customers to buy new cylinders. It reports contacting Litro’s sales manager, who rejected the allegation and said handle markings are not a criterion for accepting or refusing cylinders for refilling. The review also says it contacted several Litro retailers, who reported no instances of cylinders being rejected because of the handle lettering or its clarity. The article distinguishes faded markings from other reasons a cylinder might be refused: physical damage, belonging to another gas company, or modification or painting that does not meet company standards. It also reports that the markings identify details such as the manufacturing date, SLS certification, capacity and pressure tolerance; fading alone is not described as a reason for rejection. The review adds a qualification concerning unclear manufacturing dates: according to the sales manager, cylinders are replaced after ten years of use, while a technical team assesses cases where the manufacturing date is unclear. Its conclusion is that the specific allegation about blurred handle markings was not substantiated by the company’s explanation or the retailers’ accounts.

dpaEconomy & business

Wer Pfandflaschen abgibt, muss künftig seine Personalien angeben und eine Pfandflaschensteuer zahlen.

Publisher’s rating: Das Video ist Satire, es zeigt keine echte Erklärung Baerbocks. Es sind keine Pläne für eine Pfandflaschen-Steuer bekannt.

The claim concerns a video that purported to show German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock announcing a tax on income from bottle deposits and a registration requirement for people returning bottles. The review says the video attributed a policy to her that was outside her area of responsibility, and concludes that it did not show a genuine statement by Baerbock. It also reports that it found no plans for such a tax. [S1: “In diesem Fall soll Außenministerin Annalena Baerbock von den Grünen eine Nachricht verbreitet haben, die gar nicht aus ihrem Zuständigkeitsbereich stammt: Angeblich sollen Bürger ab 1. Januar Steuern auf die Einnahmen zahlen müssen, die sie mit Flaschenpfand erzielen, und wer Pfand abgibt, muss sich registrieren.”] The review describes several inconsistencies in the video: the spoken words do not match the speaker’s lip movements, her gestures do not align with the speech’s emphasis, and the audio quality does not fit the purported outdoor press statement. These observations support the assessment that the clip was manipulated rather than an authentic announcement. [S1: “Der gesprochene Text passt nicht dazu, wie sich die Lippen der Sprecherin bewegen. Bewegung und Gestik der Sprecherin stimmen nicht mit Betonungen im gesprochenen Text überein. Und die Qualität der Tonspur passt auch nicht zur angeblichen Situation des Pressestatements im Freien.”] The review adds that it found no other reports of a new tax. It reasons that a measure supposedly due to take effect in January would have been announced and explained by public authorities, parliament, politicians and the media. It therefore treats the absence of such reporting as further evidence against the alleged policy, not as proof of a comprehensive search beyond what the article describes. [S1: “Entsprechend finden sich auch keine weitere Meldungen über eine neue Steuer - Verwaltung, Parlament, Politik und Medien hätten die neue Regelung bekannt gemacht und Details erklärt, wenn sich echt wäre und wie behauptet schon ab Januar in Kraft träte.”]

FACTLYEconomy & business

Cabinet approved for five day working week for banks from 01 January 2024

Publisher’s rating: FALSE

The post claimed that the Union Cabinet had approved a five-day working week for banks, effective 1 January 2024, and linked that change to an amendment to the Negotiable Instruments Act. FACTLY examined the claim against a parliamentary question and the Finance Ministry’s response. The question was raised in the Rajya Sabha on 5 December 2023 and asked whether the Indian Banks Association (IBA) had sought a five-day work plan for nationalised banks. The response, given by Minister of State for Finance Bhagwat Karad, confirmed that the IBA had submitted a proposal to make all Saturdays holidays. But the ministry’s reply did not say that the proposal had been accepted, nor did it confirm that a change would take effect on 1 January 2024. That distinction is decisive: evidence that a proposal had been made does not establish that the Cabinet approved it or that the claimed start date was set. FACTLY also says it consulted news reports, which likewise described the ministry’s reply as not indicating whether the proposal had been accepted. It notes that an accepted five-day schedule might involve longer working hours, but presents that as a possible feature, not as an approved arrangement. The evidence in the review therefore supports the conclusion that the post presented an unapproved proposal as a confirmed Cabinet decision.