Xiaomi’s entry into the electrical car market has been rocked by controversy, as rising numbers of SU7 Extremely consumers accuse the corporate of false promoting over its twin air duct carbon fibre hood. The dispute has intensified since unbiased assessments revealed the 42,000 yuan (approx. 5,800 USD) elective hood offers no purposeful aerodynamic profit regardless of being marketed as a efficiency improve. Because the backlash mounts, Chinese language regulators have declined to intervene, advising shoppers to settle the matter by way of the courts.
Timeline of occasions
February 27, 2025
Xiaomi launches the SU7 Extremely, providing a carbon fibre hood as a 42,000 yuan (approx. 5,800 USD) possibility. Advertising supplies declare it options “twin air ducts for cooling and aerodynamics” and faithfully replicates the prototype design.
March 2025
Xiaomi CEO Lei Jun reaffirmed the declare in a livestream, saying the hood contains “redesigned inner ducts for wheel cooling.” Many consumers are drawn to the improve, anticipating actual aerodynamic positive aspects.
Late April 2025
Deliveries of the SU7 Extremely start. House owners rapidly uncover that the carbon fibre hood lacks purposeful air channels. Unbiased video critiques affirm minimal airflow enchancment, immediately contradicting Xiaomi’s earlier statements.
Might 7, 2025
Xiaomi apologised, admitting its product description was “not clear sufficient.” Compensation presents embody:
– For undelivered vehicles: possibility to modify to a regular aluminium hood, with 30–40 week delays.
– For delivered vehicles: 20,000 loyalty factors price about 2,000 yuan (280 USD).
House owners reject the provide, calling it insufficient. Many, like purchaser “Xi Dong” (a pseudonym), really feel misled: “I wished efficiency, not a ornament.” A 400-member rights safety group is shaped to demand refunds or reconfigured orders.
Might 10, 2025
Lei Jun posts on Weibo, calling this era “the hardest since founding Xiaomi” and admitting to a “disaster of belief.” Going through intense backlash, the put up’s remark part is quickly restricted.
Might 13, 2025
The proprietor group releases a joint video assertion and publicizes it has employed authorized counsel to organize lawsuits. Authorized specialists weigh in. Professor Dai Shengyi of Zhongnan College of Economics and Legislation says Xiaomi could have violated the Client Rights Safety Legislation. Patrons may search refunds and triple damages (“退一赔三”).
Dai provides that Xiaomi may additionally face 200,000 to 2 million yuan (approx. 27,500–275,000 USD) fines underneath the Anti-Unfair Competitors Legislation for false promoting.
Might 15, 2025
The Beijing Financial-Technological Growth Space Bureau of Commerce and Finance has closed the case. In a press release to Chinese language media, the bureau finds “no proof of misconduct” and urges shoppers to resolve the dispute by way of litigation. When approached by reporters, the bureau declined additional remark.
Authorized and business implications
With regulators stepping apart, Xiaomi SU7 Extremely homeowners have determined to simply accept the restricted compensation or problem the corporate in court docket. The controversy may set a brand new precedent for client rights enforcement in China’s fast-growing EV business—particularly relating to efficiency claims and aftermarket choices.
For Xiaomi, what started as a advertising and marketing spotlight has became a reputational disaster that will reshape how tech companies strategy transparency in car design.
