Instamart Refund Fraud Sparks Debate After Customer Uses Gemini Nano to Fake Broken Eggs
A surprising Swiggy Instamart incident has sparked intense discussion online after a customer allegedly used Google’s Gemini Nano to create a fake image and secure a refund. The case has become a notable example of Instamart refund fraud , showing how easy it may be to manipulate customer service systems with an AI-generated image. According to reports shared on X on November 24, 2025, the customer received a tray of eggs with only one cracked, yet used Gemini Nano to generate an image showing the entire tray broken. The fabricated picture was submitted as proof, and Instamart reportedly processed a full refund of Rs 245, highlighting growing e-commerce fraud concerns and the rising AI fraud risk.
The viral post explained how the customer used Gemini Nano to transform a single cracked egg into a highly realistic picture of more than 20 broken ones. With a simple prompt to “apply more cracks,” the AI instantly produced an extremely convincing AI-generated image, making it nearly indistinguishable from real damage. The doctored image was shared with Instamart’s support team, which unknowingly approved the refund. The Swiggy Instamart incident has quickly become a case study in the potential misuse of AI and the vulnerabilities it exposes in Instamart refund fraud systems as AI fraud risk increases.
According to screenshots in the viral post, Instamart accepted the AI-generated image without question and processed a full refund almost immediately. This has intensified e-commerce fraud concerns, as platforms increasingly depend on photos to verify claims. The ease with which the customer manipulated the system highlights how tools like Gemini Nano can be misused. The Swiggy Instamart incident demonstrates how accessible AI can accelerate Instamart refund fraud, raising serious questions about the future of customer verification in an era of rapid AI fraud risk expansion.
The post that sparked the discussion read:
“Someone ordered eggs on Instamart and only one came cracked. Instead of just reporting it, they opened Gemini Nano and literally typed: ‘apply more cracks.’ In a few seconds, AI turned that tray into 20+ cracked eggs — flawless, realistic, impossible to distinguish.”
The reaction to the Swiggy Instamart incident was swift and divided. Many users expressed disbelief, while others voiced concern about how AI-generated image tools may encourage dishonest behavior. Several users warned that such Instamart refund fraud exploits will increase as AI fraud risk grows, allowing people to misuse simple prompts to commit misleading acts. The conversation also reflected broader e-commerce fraud concerns about the future of trust online.
One user expressed frustration by commenting:
“What else can you expect from a low trust society? No wonder why everyone in the world hates us, even we hate our own.”
This remark struck a chord with many who believe the Swiggy Instamart incident highlights deeper societal issues that extend beyond a single act of Instamart refund fraud, particularly in an environment where AI-generated image tools make AI fraud risk easier than ever.
Another user pointed to global standards of honesty, saying:
“This is why we can never be a developed nation where people leave goods on the road, buyers pick, keep money and leave.”
This perspective tied the Swiggy Instamart incident to wider conversations about national integrity and escalating e-commerce fraud concerns, especially as AI fraud risk grows with advanced tools like Gemini Nano.
Users also criticised the customer’s actions more directly, with one calling it “a low trust society trying to scam a company because they feel entitled to refunds.” This reflects the anger many felt, seeing how quickly AI-generated image tools can turn a small issue into an elaborate Instamart refund fraud, contributing to the rising AI fraud risk within online marketplaces.
Another user highlighted the impact on delivery workers, saying:
“People have to understand that these Q-commerce companies deduct money from the delivery partner whenever a customer files a complaint. And here this person made a false complaint. That’s so evil.”
This remark added a human dimension to the Swiggy Instamart incident, showing how Instamart refund fraud affects real people and intensifies e-commerce fraud concerns as AI fraud risk grows.
Overall, the incident underscores the growing dangers of misusing powerful AI tools like Gemini Nano. The ability to create hyper-realistic AI-generated image content with a single prompt introduces new challenges for businesses that rely heavily on visual proof for refunds. The Swiggy Instamart incident highlights how Instamart refund fraud is evolving and why companies must rethink their verification systems in response to broader e-commerce fraud concerns and the rising AI fraud risk.
The speed at which the AI created the fake image and the refund was issued illustrates how quickly fraudulent actions can unfold. This raises questions about the resilience of e-commerce systems when confronted with tools that generate convincing AI-generated image content. The Swiggy Instamart incident shows how widespread Instamart refund fraud could become if businesses do not adapt swiftly, especially as AI fraud risk continues to grow.
Many commentators believe that this event is not just about one refund, but about the future landscape of online fraud. As AI tools become more sophisticated and widely accessible, e-commerce fraud concerns will likely rise. The Swiggy Instamart incident is already being cited as an early example of how AI-generated image misuse can drive Instamart refund fraud, posing increasing AI fraud risk for online platforms.
The conversation also extended to the ethical responsibility of consumers. Several users pointed out that while technology advances, societal values must strengthen to prevent misuse. This aligns with broader e-commerce fraud concerns that dishonest behavior combined with AI-generated image tools will escalate Instamart refund fraud and deepen the AI fraud risk landscape if not addressed.
In essence, the incident represents a clear warning about the dual nature of AI. While powerful and innovative, it can be exploited just as easily. The Swiggy Instamart incident is a reminder that Instamart refund fraud enabled by AI-generated image tools poses serious e-commerce fraud concerns. It also highlights how rapidly AI fraud risk is evolving as accessible AI tools become more capable and widespread.
The viral post explained how the customer used Gemini Nano to transform a single cracked egg into a highly realistic picture of more than 20 broken ones. With a simple prompt to “apply more cracks,” the AI instantly produced an extremely convincing AI-generated image, making it nearly indistinguishable from real damage. The doctored image was shared with Instamart’s support team, which unknowingly approved the refund. The Swiggy Instamart incident has quickly become a case study in the potential misuse of AI and the vulnerabilities it exposes in Instamart refund fraud systems as AI fraud risk increases.
According to screenshots in the viral post, Instamart accepted the AI-generated image without question and processed a full refund almost immediately. This has intensified e-commerce fraud concerns, as platforms increasingly depend on photos to verify claims. The ease with which the customer manipulated the system highlights how tools like Gemini Nano can be misused. The Swiggy Instamart incident demonstrates how accessible AI can accelerate Instamart refund fraud, raising serious questions about the future of customer verification in an era of rapid AI fraud risk expansion.
The post that sparked the discussion read:
“Someone ordered eggs on Instamart and only one came cracked. Instead of just reporting it, they opened Gemini Nano and literally typed: ‘apply more cracks.’ In a few seconds, AI turned that tray into 20+ cracked eggs — flawless, realistic, impossible to distinguish.”
The reaction to the Swiggy Instamart incident was swift and divided. Many users expressed disbelief, while others voiced concern about how AI-generated image tools may encourage dishonest behavior. Several users warned that such Instamart refund fraud exploits will increase as AI fraud risk grows, allowing people to misuse simple prompts to commit misleading acts. The conversation also reflected broader e-commerce fraud concerns about the future of trust online.
One user expressed frustration by commenting:
“What else can you expect from a low trust society? No wonder why everyone in the world hates us, even we hate our own.”
This remark struck a chord with many who believe the Swiggy Instamart incident highlights deeper societal issues that extend beyond a single act of Instamart refund fraud, particularly in an environment where AI-generated image tools make AI fraud risk easier than ever.
Another user pointed to global standards of honesty, saying:
“This is why we can never be a developed nation where people leave goods on the road, buyers pick, keep money and leave.”
This perspective tied the Swiggy Instamart incident to wider conversations about national integrity and escalating e-commerce fraud concerns, especially as AI fraud risk grows with advanced tools like Gemini Nano.
Users also criticised the customer’s actions more directly, with one calling it “a low trust society trying to scam a company because they feel entitled to refunds.” This reflects the anger many felt, seeing how quickly AI-generated image tools can turn a small issue into an elaborate Instamart refund fraud, contributing to the rising AI fraud risk within online marketplaces.
Another user highlighted the impact on delivery workers, saying:
“People have to understand that these Q-commerce companies deduct money from the delivery partner whenever a customer files a complaint. And here this person made a false complaint. That’s so evil.”
This remark added a human dimension to the Swiggy Instamart incident, showing how Instamart refund fraud affects real people and intensifies e-commerce fraud concerns as AI fraud risk grows.
Overall, the incident underscores the growing dangers of misusing powerful AI tools like Gemini Nano. The ability to create hyper-realistic AI-generated image content with a single prompt introduces new challenges for businesses that rely heavily on visual proof for refunds. The Swiggy Instamart incident highlights how Instamart refund fraud is evolving and why companies must rethink their verification systems in response to broader e-commerce fraud concerns and the rising AI fraud risk.
The speed at which the AI created the fake image and the refund was issued illustrates how quickly fraudulent actions can unfold. This raises questions about the resilience of e-commerce systems when confronted with tools that generate convincing AI-generated image content. The Swiggy Instamart incident shows how widespread Instamart refund fraud could become if businesses do not adapt swiftly, especially as AI fraud risk continues to grow.
Many commentators believe that this event is not just about one refund, but about the future landscape of online fraud. As AI tools become more sophisticated and widely accessible, e-commerce fraud concerns will likely rise. The Swiggy Instamart incident is already being cited as an early example of how AI-generated image misuse can drive Instamart refund fraud, posing increasing AI fraud risk for online platforms.
The conversation also extended to the ethical responsibility of consumers. Several users pointed out that while technology advances, societal values must strengthen to prevent misuse. This aligns with broader e-commerce fraud concerns that dishonest behavior combined with AI-generated image tools will escalate Instamart refund fraud and deepen the AI fraud risk landscape if not addressed.
In essence, the incident represents a clear warning about the dual nature of AI. While powerful and innovative, it can be exploited just as easily. The Swiggy Instamart incident is a reminder that Instamart refund fraud enabled by AI-generated image tools poses serious e-commerce fraud concerns. It also highlights how rapidly AI fraud risk is evolving as accessible AI tools become more capable and widespread.
Next Story