How does the AI Fact Checker work?

The AI Fact Checker analyzes claims using advanced AI technology to verify information against trusted sources like BBC, Reuters, AP, and Snopes. It provides verdicts (True, Partly True, or False) in under 20 seconds with complete transparency about sources and methodology.

Is the AI Fact Checker free to use?

Yes, the AI Fact Checker app is completely free to download and use on both iOS and Android devices.

What languages does the app support?

The AI Fact Checker currently supports English, German, Dutch, French, Spanish, and Italian, with more languages planned for future releases.

How accurate is the AI Fact Checker?

The AI Fact Checker maintains a 98% accuracy rate by cross-referencing multiple trusted sources and using transparent methodology. All verdicts include source citations and bias indicators for full transparency.

Does the app protect my privacy?

Yes, privacy is a core principle. Your searches are completely private, and we never share or sell your data to third parties.

Entertainment·February 3, 2026·10 sources

Bill Gates is in the Epstein files

Partly TrueThis claim contains some truth but is misleading or missing important context.

Analysis

The claim that "Bill Gates is in the Epstein files" is partially supported by multiple recent reports referencing newly released documents connected to Jeffrey Epstein. These sources indicate that Gates appears in the files mostly in the context of communications and meetings with Epstein, as well as scrutiny over their interactions, but there is no conclusive evidence of criminal wrongdoing or direct involvement in Epstein’s crimes. The sources are predominantly non-trusted, and none provide verified, authoritative confirmation from trusted media or official investigations. Some reports mention Gates’ efforts to distance himself and clarify the nature of their relationship, which was reportedly professional or philanthropic rather than personal or illicit. Thus, while Gates' name appears in the files and related discussions, the claim’s implication that he is substantively implicated is not fully supported by reliable evidence.