On January 7, 2026, YouTuber and tech commentator Anubhav Gupta publicly alleged that he received a threatening phone call demanding the removal of a video critical of Dhruv Rathee’s AI-based application, AI Fiesta. The call, according to Gupta, came from a number carrying a German country code (+49) and followed the rapid circulation of his expose video across social media platforms.
Gupta did not merely describe the incident, he published the number, refused to take down the video, and framed the call as an attempt to silence criticism through intimidation rather than rebuttal. His public statement triggered widespread debate about digital power, free speech, and the risks faced by independent creators who challenge influencer-backed commercial ventures.
The YouTuber’s post quickly went viral, gathering thousands of engagements, and transforming what was initially a technical critique into a broader controversy involving ethics, transparency, and alleged coercion.
What the expose video alleged
The video at the heart of the controversy was uploaded on December 22, weeks before the alleged threat call. In it, Gupta dissected AI Fiesta’s privacy policy, terms of service, and marketing claims, arguing that the app engages in practices that contradict its creator’s public stance on data protection.
According to Gupta, the app stores user prompts and AI-generated responses, which may include deeply personal information, ranging from political opinions and emotional confessions to professional and financial queries. He highlighted that most users, as a matter of habit, accept privacy policies without fully reading them, effectively surrendering sensitive data without informed consent.
Gupta maintained that his claims were not speculative but rooted in publicly available documents published by the company itself.
Data retention and the privacy question
A central concern raised in the expose was data retention. AI Fiesta’s policy, Gupta argued, clearly states that user interactions may be stored, reviewed, and used for service improvement. While such clauses are common in AI platforms, Gupta questioned their scope, duration, and safeguards, especially when combined with vague terminology.
The app also collects IP addresses and broadly defined “device information,” a term Gupta criticised for its lack of specificity. According to him, such ambiguity allows companies to gather extensive behavioural and location-based data without clearly disclosing its extent.
Privacy experts have long warned that IP and device-level data, when aggregated, can be used for profiling, targeted influence, and surveillance, particularly if breached or shared with third parties.
Marketing claims under scanner
Beyond privacy, Gupta challenged the commercial narrative built around AI Fiesta. One of the most prominent claims promoted by the app was that it achieved dollar 3 million in Annual Recurring Revenue (ARR) within 36 hours of launch.
Gupta argued that this figure was presented in a way that created hype without sufficient context, potentially misleading users into believing the platform had achieved unprecedented success. In a crowded AI ecosystem where many tools are free or low-cost, such claims, he suggested, were designed to create urgency and credibility rather than transparency.
The criticism resonated with users familiar with startup marketing tactics, where selective metrics are often amplified to attract attention and investment.
Another serious allegation involved Google Play Store reviews. Gupta pointed to clusters of five-star ratings that shared identical sentence structures, repeated phrases, and common keywords, hallmarks often associated with bot-generated or purchased reviews.
Screenshots circulated online appeared to support the claim, showing multiple reviews posted within short intervals, praising the app using nearly identical language. Gupta argued that such practices mislead users and artificially inflate credibility, especially in the early stages of an app’s lifecycle.
The presence of inauthentic reviews, if proven, would raise questions not only about AI Fiesta’s marketing ethics but also about platform oversight mechanisms.
A clash of Persona
Perhaps the most politically charged element of the expose was Gupta’s accusation of hypocrisy. Dhruv Rathee has built a large following by positioning himself as a critic of surveillance, data misuse, and authoritarian control over digital spaces.
Gupta juxtaposed this public image with AI Fiesta’s internal policies, arguing that the app’s data collection practices directly contradict the values Rathee often champions in his videos.
Of particular concern was a clause stating that no system is entirely secure, a standard disclaimer in tech policies but one Gupta interpreted as a legal shield that absolves the company of responsibility in the event of a data breach.
For many, the contradiction was not merely technical, it was ideological.
The threat call and its implications
The alleged threat call marked a turning point. According to Gupta, the caller demanded the video’s removal, offering no factual rebuttal but insisting on takedown. Gupta interpreted the tone and timing of the call as an attempt to intimidate rather than engage.
By sharing the number and refusing compliance, Gupta framed the incident as a test case for digital intimidation, where influence, resources, and reach are allegedly used to suppress dissent.
The fact that the number carried a foreign country code further complicated the narrative, raising questions about jurisdiction, enforcement, and the global nature of influencer-led businesses.
Gupta also drew attention to AI Fiesta’s corporate registration in Delaware, United States, arguing that branding it as a domestic Indian AI success story was misleading.
He questioned where user data is stored, which legal frameworks apply in case of disputes, and how Indian users can seek redress if their data is misused. In an era where digital platforms transcend borders, such questions are becoming increasingly relevant.
The issue highlights a regulatory grey zone where global incorporation allows companies to benefit from Indian markets while operating under foreign legal protections.
A pattern of allegations?
The controversy revived memories of earlier disputes involving Dhruv Rathee. In September 2023, YouTuber Karolina Goswami and her husband alleged that Rathee’s supporters had harassed and physically confronted them in Europe following critical fact-checks.
While no direct link was established, critics argue that repeated allegations of intimidation, whether direct or indirect, contribute to a perception problem that Rathee has yet to convincingly address.
Beyond personalities, the AI Fiesta episode shows a larger issue: the lack of accountability mechanisms for influencer-led tech ventures. When public figures leverage trust built through political or social commentary to launch commercial products, the line between advocacy and enterprise blurs.
Independent creators like Gupta, who lack comparable reach or resources, often bear disproportionate risks when challenging such platforms.
What began as a YouTube video about an AI app has evolved into a case study on digital power, data ethics, and free expression in the influencer economy. Whether Gupta’s allegations lead to regulatory scrutiny or legal action remains to be seen.
But the episode has already achieved one outcome, it has forced uncomfortable questions into the open, reminding users that behind every sleek AI interface lies a complex web of data, profit, and power.
