The high-profile legal case concerning the Xiaomi SU7 Ultra's "ventilated hood" has concluded its first trial nearly a year after it began. The dispute started when Xiaomi released the mass-production version of the SU7 Ultra. After taking delivery, owners conducted tests and found that the internal structure of the ventilated hood did not provide the "high-efficiency airflow" function as they expected. This led a buyer to demand a refund of their deposit and subsequently file a lawsuit against the company. The core issue has been whether Xiaomi's marketing constituted false advertising, leading to a protracted legal battle lasting over half a year.
A recent development has emerged from the case. According to the plaintiff, the Changsha Kaifu District People's Court issued a first-instance judgment on February 12, 2026. While the court supported the mutual termination of the car purchase contract, it rejected the plaintiff's three other claims: that Xiaomi engaged in false advertising, that Xiaomi breached the contract, and that Xiaomi should refund double the deposit (the plaintiff had only paid a 10,000 yuan deposit and did not take delivery of the vehicle). The court ruled that the existing evidence was insufficient to prove that Xiaomi had committed false advertising or sales fraud, nor was there a breach of contract. Therefore, the claim for a double deposit refund was not supported.
The plaintiff and other owners involved in the collective action have expressed strong disagreement with the verdict and support an appeal. The plaintiff has already submitted an appeal to the Changsha Intermediate People's Court.
**Case Focus 1: Did Xiaomi's Actions Constitute False Advertising?** The central dispute was whether Xiaomi's marketing amounted to false advertising or sales fraud. Based on the judgment, the court found the evidence for such claims lacking. The court noted that the Xiaomi SU7 Ultra prototype was designed specifically for track use as a racing vehicle, which has significant differences in configuration and functional requirements compared to the mass-production version, which is geared more towards everyday needs. Furthermore, Xiaomi's official launch event and subsequent communications explicitly stated that the "mass-production car is very different from the prototype car." The court reasoned that a generally rational person should understand that a mass-production vehicle's configuration and functions cannot completely match those of a prototype.
The court also addressed the change in Xiaomi's description of the "ventilated hood" from "high-efficiency airflow" to "partial airflow export and auxiliary front compartment heat dissipation." Apart from displaying its appearance, Xiaomi never specified precise parameters for this component or quantified any specific improvements to vehicle function or performance. Therefore, the court concluded that the marketing language did not obligate Xiaomi to produce and deliver a carbon fiber dual-duct front hood to prototype standards or guarantee that the mass-production hood would possess identical performance.
Additionally, the court highlighted that the plaintiff had not taken delivery of the vehicle. The claim of false advertising was based primarily on the change in marketing language and evidence such as videos posted online. Following the fundamental principle of civil litigation, "the party who asserts must prove," the plaintiff failed to provide evidence defining the specific parameter standards for "high-efficiency airflow" or proving that the delivered vehicle failed to meet those standards. The change in wording and online videos alone were deemed insufficient for a determination of false advertising.
The judgment also referenced a "Aerodynamic Wind Tunnel Test Report" provided by Xiaomi, issued by China Automotive Engineering Research Institute Co., Ltd. (Tianjin). The report's test data indicated that for the Xiaomi SU7 Ultra carbon fiber air duct version, "in downforce testing, the experimental data shows that hood openings reduce the front axle lift coefficient (Clf) by 0.002, reduce the rear axle lift coefficient (Clr) by 0.002, increase the drag coefficient (Cd) by 0.001, thus increasing downforce." This was seen as proof that the hood's openings did provide functions like airflow guidance and improved brake cooling capacity, broadly aligning with the functions one might expect from a "through-flow air duct." Consequently, in the absence of a clear quantitative standard, the terms "high-efficiency" and "partial" were not necessarily contradictory, and the change in promotional language was insufficient to prove false advertising.
**Case Focus 2: Did Xiaomi Breach the Contract? Is a Double Deposit Refund Required?** The court also did not support the claim of breach of contract. It found that the signed car purchase agreement and its appendices only specified the inclusion of a "carbon fiber dual-duct front hood" configuration but did not stipulate any specific performance parameters or metrics. The plaintiff argued that marketing statements should serve as the benchmark, but the court noted that the promotions likewise did not specify clear parameters or quantified performance improvements for the component, nor did they make any concrete promises.
While the court acknowledged that Xiaomi's shift in wording from "high-efficiency airflow" to "partial airflow export" demonstrated a lack of rigor, it ruled that, without specific parameters and criteria for "high-efficiency airflow," the existing evidence—primarily the changed marketing language and online videos—was insufficient to establish a breach of contract.
The judgment further stated that when Xiaomi first revealed the appearance and some parameters of the SU7 Ultra mass-production model on October 29, 2024, it did not clarify whether the carbon fiber dual-duct front hood was available as an option for purchase, nor did it show the appearance of the mass-production car equipped with this hood. The plaintiff's decision to pay a 10,000 yuan reservation fee under these circumstances suggested their primary goal was to purchase a mass-production Xiaomi SU7 Ultra vehicle (even without the carbon fiber hood), and that the specific hood was not a decisive factor in their purchase decision.
Moreover, Xiaomi had stated on May 7, 2025, that undelivered orders could be freely changed to the aluminum hood version of the SU7 Ultra. Therefore, the evidence did not prove that Xiaomi had engaged in "failing to perform its obligations or performing them in a manner inconsistent with the agreement, thereby frustrating the purpose of the contract." Thus, the court rejected the claim for contract termination based on breach and the demand for a double deposit refund. However, since both parties agreed to terminate the contract, the court supported the dissolution of the "Xiaomi Auto Purchase Agreement" signed on March 5, 2025, effective from September 13, 2025, the date the plaintiff's intent to terminate was received by Xiaomi.
**Plaintiff Rejects Verdict, Files Appeal** Owners in the relevant chat groups have largely expressed dissatisfaction with the outcome. Some argue that the vehicle configuration page during ordering used phrases like "fully replicates the prototype car," yet the actual vehicle lacked these features. They feel the video promotions and webpage text misled and deceived consumers. One owner questioned, "If Xiaomi can claim they didn't specify anything after all that promotion, can I just promote my product however I want?" Another stated that at the time of ordering, based on promotional videos, statements by CEO Lei Jun, and the configuration page—which included terms like "fully replicates the prototype," "through-flow air duct," and imagery suggesting a performance car with aerodynamics and downforce—owners believed they were ordering that specific vehicle.
The plaintiff and their legal counsel also do not accept the judgment. The appeal argues that the first-instance court erred in its findings. The plaintiff contends they never insisted the mass-production car match the prototype in all aspects, but consistently argued that the mass-production carbon fiber hood should possess the same *function* as the prototype hood. They point out that when selling the hood as an option, Xiaomi explicitly stated it "added 2 through-flow air ducts to achieve efficient airflow guidance at the front" compared to the standard aluminum hood. However, during the trial, when asked to specify the hood's functions, Xiaomi only stated it could achieve "partial airflow export and auxiliary front compartment heat dissipation," which was inconsistent with the initial promotional description and lacked a full and truthful explanation.
The plaintiff believes that Xiaomi, by claiming it never published specific parameters, exploited consumers' lack of professional knowledge through selective, favorable marketing. They argue the court erred in expecting consumers to accept such vague and potentially misleading宣传. Furthermore, the plaintiff asserts that their contract purpose was not merely to buy a car, but specifically to buy a vehicle equipped with a carbon fiber hood possessing the same functionality as the prototype's hood, a decision made *after* Xiaomi announced this option. When the delivered hood lacked the promoted functionality, the plaintiff's contract purpose was frustrated, compounded by ridicule from other owners and the public, damaging the unconditional trust "Mi fans" had in Lei Jun and Xiaomi.
Within the owner group, legal representatives have also questioned the wind tunnel test report provided by Xiaomi. They argue it was commissioned unilaterally by Xiaomi, not as a judicial appraisal, and that Xiaomi did not demonstrate the commissioning institution's independence and neutrality or submit complete raw data, testing protocols, or technical materials allowing for third-party verification. They note that the coefficient changes reported (e.g., front/rear lift changes of ±0.002, drag increase of 0.001) are minuscule and potentially within the margin of error for wind tunnel testing, thus failing to demonstrate the effects implied by promotional terms like "fully replicates the prototype," "same aerodynamic design," "efficient airflow," and "through-flow air duct."
**Owner Representative Laments the Difficulties of Consumer Rights Protection** As the case moves to a second trial, a final verdict is still pending. Meanwhile, other lawsuits filed by owners in cities like Hangzhou, Suzhou, and Shanghai remain unresolved. Mr. Gao, a plaintiff from Hangzhou, noted the lengthy and challenging nature of legal recourse for consumers. Some courts have yet to accept cases for filing; his own submission to the Hangzhou Qiantang District Court remains unaccepted. Other cases that have been heard face procedural delays, such as objections to jurisdiction raised by Xiaomi, with no final outcomes yet.
Reflecting on the experience, Mr. Gao highlighted the inherent difficulties for individual consumers seeking justice. Firstly, he felt regulatory bodies should have intervened in the dispute, but for unknown reasons, they declined to受理. Secondly, the litigation process is draining in terms of energy, time, and cost. While consumers might have some legal knowledge, the practical process is daunting and reliant on lawyers of varying competence, whereas large companies employ highly specialized legal teams capable of raising numerous technical objections, making a victory difficult. Finally, consumers are often required to agree to lengthy, complex contracts during purchase by simply ticking a box, lacking the patience or expertise to review them thoroughly. When disputes arise, companies can then use these terms to limit their liability.
The case remains under review in the second instance. Further developments will be monitored.
Comments