Imagine waking up one morning to a message that looks like it came from your bank, telling you to withdraw your money immediately because the company is about to shut down. That is exactly what happened to countless OPay customers in Nigeria on 30 August 2026, when a post began circulating on X claiming that OPay Digital Services Limited was going on an “indefinite break” starting September 1. The message was dressed up to look like an official communication from the company, complete with a formal title, and it urged customers to remove their funds because transactions and account-related services would no longer be available. It was the kind of notice that would make anyone’s heart skip a beat. OPay, one of Nigeria’s major fintech companies, quickly denied the claim and reassured customers that its operations were completely unaffected. The company urged people to rely only on its official communication channels and to verify social media posts before sharing them. But the damage had already begun. The false notice had spread widely across social media and messaging platforms, and some customers, understandably worried about their hard-earned money, had already moved their funds. To calm the storm, OPay held a Live Town Hall in Lagos, where it addressed the reports face-to-face with customers, merchants, and stakeholders, insisting that the company remained fully operational. Later, the Nigeria Police Force National Cybercrime Centre arrested a suspect after a digital forensic investigation traced the origin of the claim to an X account. Police said the investigation was continuing, but the episode left a lingering question: how easily can a single fabricated post shake public trust in a business?
OPay is far from alone in this experience. In July 2026, Access Bank had to respond to a false social media message claiming that the bank was shutting down. The bank described the publication as false and said it had falsely impersonated its official communication channels. Access Holdings also notified the Nigerian Exchange that the publication was not authorised by the company and had been referred to regulatory, security, and law enforcement authorities. A few years earlier, in 2023, Palmpay, another Nigerian fintech company, found itself buried under a wave of misinformation. Misleading videos were posted on social media, supposedly showing the company’s agents harassing customers. The FactCheckHub examined the claims and found that most of the videos were either skits or completely unrelated to Palmpay. The misinformation was not always about banks and fintech companies, either. In 2023, an unidentified woman allegedly contacted Airtel customers in Mumbai, falsely telling them that the prices of their postpaid plans were about to increase and encouraging them to switch to another network. According to a report by Mid-Day, 419 Airtel customers actually changed networks after receiving those calls, costing the company an estimated 483,000 Indian rupees. Airtel reported the matter to police, who began investigating the alleged scheme. In Nigeria, Airtel also had to distance itself from a Facebook page called “Airtel Our World,” which claimed in 2019 that the company was giving away 500,000 iPhones to customers who commented on its post. The post was shared thousands of times before AFP fact-checked it and confirmed that Airtel was not running such a promotion. More recently, in September 2026, a Nigerian X user named Enori admitted that she had used artificial intelligence to create a fake image purporting to show an itel power tank exploding. In an apology posted on social media, she said the image and the claim about the explosion were fabricated using AI. “Hi, good morning, everybody. I made a post three days ago claiming that itel solar fan exploded and that it was overcharging, which I used AI to create. It didn’t happen, and I’m very, very sorry to the itel team and to the itel customers,” she said. Her apology followed a warning from itel, which said it would not tolerate attempts to use fabricated content to discredit its brand or mislead customers, and that deliberate attempts to misrepresent the company would attract appropriate legal action.
These cases reveal a troubling pattern: misinformation can hit businesses in many different ways, and the effects are often more serious than they first appear. Sometimes the false claim triggers customer panic, as with OPay, where people rushed to withdraw their money. Sometimes it encourages customers to leave a service entirely, as with the Airtel customers in Mumbai who switched networks. Sometimes it impersonates a company to attract consumers, as with the fake iPhone giveaway. And sometimes it creates false evidence that a product is unsafe, as with the AI-generated image of the itel power tank. In every case, the immediate response from the company is often the same: stop what you are doing and correct the information. OPay did that, Access Bank did that, Airtel did that, and itel did that. But correcting a false claim is not as simple as deleting the original post or posting a denial. By the time a company responds, the claim has usually been copied, screenshotted, and forwarded across social media and messaging platforms. People who saw the original false post may never see the correction, and the company has to find a way to reach them anyway. It may have to reassure customers, monitor further mentions, involve regulators or law enforcement, and in some cases consider legal action. The burden falls on the business to prove that it is still alive, still safe, and still trustworthy, even though it did nothing wrong. This is especially unfair because misinformation is often designed to look official, which makes it even harder for ordinary people to tell the difference between a genuine announcement and a fake one. The emotional toll on customers is real too: the anxiety of thinking your money is about to disappear, the confusion of not knowing who to trust, and the frustration of being misled by something that looked so convincing.
Speaking with The FactCheckHub, Ayokunle Olubunmi, the Head of Financial Institutions Ratings at Agusto & Co, explained why misinformation can be particularly damaging to financial institutions. Banking, he said, depends heavily on customer trust. “For the business of banking, you have to pay attention to trust,” he said. A loss of confidence could trigger what is known as a bank run, where large numbers of depositors attempt to withdraw their funds at the same time. “If there is what we call a run on the bank, where all the depositors are coming for their funds at the same time, the bank collapses,” Olubunmi said. This is not an abstract theory; it is a real danger that keeps financial institutions awake at night. When a false message tells people to withdraw their money, it taps into a deep fear that their savings are not safe. Even if the company quickly denies the claim, the seed of doubt has already been planted. Some customers may think, “Where there is smoke, there is fire,” and decide to move their money just to be safe. That kind of reaction, multiplied by thousands of customers, can create serious liquidity problems for a bank or fintech company. Olubunmi also noted that the impact extends beyond financial institutions. False claims about businesses and their products can damage reputations and influence customer decisions in every sector. A single viral lie can undo years of hard work building a brand, and the company may never fully recover the trust it lost. The asymmetry is striking: it takes seconds to create and share a false post, but it can take months or years to repair the damage.
Olubunmi offered practical advice for businesses navigating this difficult landscape. He advised companies to maintain an active presence on social media so they can quickly respond to false claims and provide accurate information to customers. In a crisis, silence is not golden; it is dangerous. A company that is already present and engaged with its audience can push back against misinformation before it spirals out of control. But Olubunmi also cautioned businesses against treating every negative online post as misinformation. Some complaints may reflect genuine experiences with a product or service, and companies need to be careful not to dismiss real problems just because they are uncomfortable. “There’s a thin line that we need to be careful about,” he said, warning that businesses should not use their influence or security agencies to intimidate customers who raise legitimate complaints. This is an important point. In the rush to defend themselves, companies can sometimes overreact and silence valid criticism, which only makes the public more distrustful. Olubunmi said businesses should first engage with people making complaints, establish whether the claims are genuine, and, where necessary, ask those responsible to remove demonstrably false information. This approach respects the difference between protecting a brand and suppressing free speech. It also recognises that customers are not the enemy. They are the people a business exists to serve, and their concerns, even when inconvenient, can be valuable feedback. The goal should be to build a relationship of trust, not to win every argument.
Ultimately, the fight against misinformation cannot be left to businesses alone. Olubunmi urged authorities like the National Orientation Agency (NOA) to intensify public education on the dangers of misinformation, saying individuals need to be better equipped to identify and question information before believing or sharing it. This is a shared responsibility. Social media platforms, fact-checking organisations, regulators, businesses, and ordinary citizens all have a role to play. For ordinary people, the lesson is simple but hard to practice: pause before you share. Ask yourself where the information came from, whether it is from an official source, and whether it makes sense. If a message tells you to withdraw your money or switch networks, do not act on impulse. Check the company’s official website, its verified social media pages, or reliable news outlets. The cases of OPay, Access Bank, Palmpay, Airtel, and itel show that misinformation can be incredibly convincing, but it can also be defeated by a little bit of patience and verification. For businesses, the challenge is to stay alert, respond quickly, and communicate honestly, without trampling on legitimate criticism. For regulators and educators, the task is to create an environment where people are less likely to fall for lies in the first place. In a world where artificial intelligence can create fake images and fake announcements in seconds, the ability to think critically is not just a skill; it is a survival tool. The next time you see a shocking post about a company, remember OPay and the thousands of customers who moved their money because of a lie. Take a breath. Verify. And only then, share.