Reported by Weng Patrick Atokor l Journalist at Weng Global
A Nigerian X user has apologised after creating and sharing an artificial intelligence-generated image falsely presented as showing an itel Power Tank exploding, prompting the technology company to warn that deliberate misinformation about its products could attract legal action.
The user, identified on X as Enori, later deleted the post and acknowledged that both the image and the scenario depicted were generated using AI. The user also admitted that the claim was untrue and accepted responsibility for the misinformation and confusion caused by the post.
The incident has drawn attention to the growing challenge posed by realistic AI-generated content, particularly when fabricated images are presented as evidence of product failures or safety incidents.
How the Fake itel Power Tank Claim Spread
The controversy began when Enori shared an AI-generated image that appeared to show an itel Power Tank involved in an explosion.
The post reportedly suggested that the portable power station had exploded after being overcharged. The claim attracted attention on social media before the user removed the post and issued an apology.
In the apology, Enori acknowledged that the image and the situation portrayed in it were entirely AI-generated and did not represent a genuine incident involving an itel Power Tank.
The admission came after the image had already circulated online, highlighting how quickly fabricated visual material can acquire the appearance of credible evidence once it is shared across social media platforms.
For consumers, images can be particularly persuasive because they may appear to provide direct visual proof of an event. However, the incident demonstrates that an image alone is not sufficient to establish that a product failure or safety incident actually occurred.
itel Warns of Possible Legal Action
Following the circulation of the image, itel issued a disclaimer on X warning against the use of AI-generated or manipulated material to spread false information about its products.
The company said it welcomes genuine customer feedback and constructive criticism but would not tolerate deliberate attempts to use fabricated content to discredit its brand or mislead customers.
itel further warned that deliberate attempts to misrepresent the company through fabricated content, manipulated materials or false claims could attract legal action. The company said it would pursue appropriate legal remedies where necessary to protect its brand, customers and reputation.
The warning does not mean that every inaccurate social media post will necessarily result in legal proceedings. Rather, it represents the company’s stated position that deliberate fabrication and distribution of misleading material could lead to legal consequences.
No Verified Explosion Linked to the Viral Image
Available reporting indicates that there is no verified evidence that an itel Power Tank was involved in the explosion depicted in the AI-generated image.
itel Energy and related accounts subsequently cautioned social media users against continuing to circulate the fabricated material, maintaining that the image did not represent an actual incident involving the product.
This distinction is important because allegations involving the safety of electrical and energy-storage products can have consequences beyond online discussion. Consumers may rely on such information when deciding whether to purchase or use a product, while companies can face reputational damage if false claims spread widely.
What Is the itel Power Tank?
The itel Power Tank is marketed as a portable power station designed to provide backup electricity during power outages.
Available product information describes versions of the Power Tank as using lithium iron phosphate (LiFePO4) battery technology. Product listings also describe protection systems covering issues such as overheating, over-voltage, overload and short circuits.
These specifications describe the product’s design and advertised safety features. They should not, however, be interpreted as proof that a product can never experience a malfunction or safety problem.
In this particular case, the relevant point is that no verified report has established a genuine explosion corresponding to the image circulated by the X user.
AI Images and the Challenge of Online Verification
The episode illustrates a broader problem facing social media users as generative AI tools become increasingly capable of producing realistic photographs and other visual material.
A fabricated image can be created without a real-world event taking place and can subsequently be presented as though it were an authentic photograph.
That creates particular risks for stories involving product safety, accidents, disasters and public figures. Once an image is widely shared, subsequent users may encounter it without the original context and assume that it came from a legitimate news organisation, eyewitness or official source.
The itel incident therefore also underscores the importance of verification before sharing potentially damaging claims.
Consumers encountering a dramatic product-safety image can check whether the company has issued an official statement, whether reputable news organisations have independently reported the event, and whether credible evidence exists beyond the original social media post.
Why the Apology Matters
Enori’s subsequent apology provides an important clarification because it directly addresses the authenticity of the original material.
Rather than leaving the claim uncorrected, the user acknowledged that the image and scenario were AI-generated and accepted responsibility for the misinformation and confusion caused by the post.
The correction also helps distinguish the original social media claim from a confirmed product-safety incident.
However, deleting a post does not necessarily mean that its contents disappear from the internet. Screenshots, reposts and references can continue circulating after the original material has been removed.
That makes prompt corrections particularly important when false information has already attracted significant attention.
What Happens Next?
For now, the key confirmed developments are the deletion and apology from the X user and itel’s warning that it may pursue legal remedies against deliberate fabrication concerning its products.
There is no verified evidence in the reporting reviewed by Weng Global that the viral image depicts a genuine itel Power Tank explosion.
The episode is likely to remain relevant to discussions about AI-generated misinformation, especially as businesses and consumers increasingly encounter synthetic images that can appear indistinguishable from conventional photographs.
For social media users, the incident reinforces a basic verification principle: striking visual content should not automatically be treated as evidence. Claims involving safety, accidents or alleged wrongdoing should be checked against reliable sources before they are shared further.
The case also demonstrates why companies are increasingly responding publicly when fabricated content appears to threaten consumer confidence in their products.
As AI-generated media becomes more common, the ability to distinguish verified information from synthetic or manipulated material will remain an increasingly important part of responsible digital communication.
Weng Global – Stories beyond borders
Sources
- Punch Newspapers — reporting on itel’s warning and the fake AI-generated explosion image.
- Legit.ng — reporting on the X user’s apology and itel’s response.
- itel Power Tank product information — specifications and battery technology.
