Kimi has once again exposed a long-standing issue with Baidu's search results.
Last night, the official account of Moonshot AI's Kimi publicly called out Baidu, pointing out that when searching for the "Kimi official website" on Baidu, the top four results labeled "Kimi" were all from unofficial websites, severely misleading users.
Following the public outcry, Baidu quietly optimized its search results, placing the official Kimi webpage at the top and labeling it with an "official" identifier. The original post by Kimi has since become unavailable.
It was discovered that on social media, numerous users reported that when searching for "Kimi" on Baidu, they failed to notice the results were advertisements. They were subsequently redirected to a service provider named "Panda Office," made a payment, and only after paying 199 yuan realized it was not the official Kimi service. Furthermore, refunds were reportedly denied.
An internet industry insider suggested that Moonshot AI and Baidu's ERNIE have long maintained a competitive yet cooperative relationship. As AI giants based in the same city, they have interactions on various occasions, making it unlikely that they are unfamiliar with each other to the point of needing public appeals. The choice to publicly assert rights was likely intended to create public pressure, forcing Baidu to act quickly. "Private communication might be ignored, but public call-outs yield immediate results, while also alerting users to potential risks and protecting brand trust," the insider commented.
This incident is not an isolated case. Baidu's search engine has a long history of misleading results due to its pay-for-placement ranking system and lax review processes. These search-related issues have, to some extent, impacted Baidu's financial performance. In the third quarter of 2025, its online marketing revenue declined by 18% year-over-year, marking the sixth consecutive quarter of decline. The growth in monthly active users for the Baidu App has also nearly stagnated, highlighting the fundamental conflict between the commercial interests of search engines and the accuracy of information provided.
A user claimed to have been "scammed" after searching for Kimi on Baidu.
On January 31st, a netizen posted, "@Baidu, Baidu is finished, it's just a shell of a fake website. Baidu, you're as garbage as ever. It's basically诱导ing top-ups. @Moonshot AI Kimi, this is really疯狂ly consuming your brand." Accompanying screenshots showed that the top result for a Baidu search of "Kimi official web version" was an advertisement for Panda Office.
Subsequently, the official Moonshot AI Kimi account reposted this and called out Baidu: "Can someone help @ a Baidu colleague? Just tried it, the top 4 sites labeled 'Kimi' are not Kimi." They further commented, "Using 'Kimi Official Website' in the website title is highly misleading to users."
After the舆论发酵, Baidu quietly optimized the search results. The official Kimi webpage was prominently featured at the top with a clear "official" verification badge, and the previous unofficial advertisements no longer appeared among the top results. Later, the official Moonshot AI Kimi Weibo account posted an update stating, "It has been restored."
In fact, the problem encountered by Moonshot AI is not an isolated incident but a persistent issue long associated with Baidu. For years, Baidu's search engine, due to its pay-for-placement system and insufficient review, has repeatedly led to cases of user misdirection, the most representative being the 2016 "Wei Zexi incident."
Investigation revealed that on social media, many users shared experiences of being misled by the aforementioned ads posing as Kimi and making payments. One user stated, "I wasn't paying close attention, thought it was Kimi, and in a hurry paid 199 yuan. Everyone beware, this isn't Kimi; it just says it integrates Kimi. It's Panda Office, and they claim that downloading the PPT means you agree to the paid service, no refunds. I'm just accepting the loss."
What responsibility should a search engine bear if users suffer losses due to misleading results? Regarding this, Han Bin, a lawyer from Beijing Zhongyin (Guangzhou) Law Firm, explained that search engines primarily bear fault-based liability. If a search engine is aware that its results are misleading but fails to correct them proactively, or if it uses algorithms to actively push misleading content, it can be deemed at fault and held responsible. Regulatory authorities can impose fines or order rectification.
Han Bin stated that if users suffer damages from misleading search results, they can claim rights under the Civil Code. For general infringement, it must be proven that the search engine "knew or should have known" about the infringing content—for instance, if, as in the Kimi case, the platform fails to act after a complaint from the brand owner. Regarding advertising infringement, if content is deemed false advertising, the Advertising Law applies, and the search engine, as the publisher, bears joint liability, though it may seek recourse from the advertiser.
Behind the search engine chaos lies performance pressure on Baidu.
So, why did Moonshot AI choose to publicize the search result issue?
A netizen commented, "Theoretically, you could file a complaint with Baidu (especially a trademark complaint). At the very least, results where 'Kimi' is highlighted in the title could be reported for removal. In practice, it's quite time-consuming, and other similar ads might just pop up again."
Further inquiries were made regarding the incident using both ERNIE and Kimi. When asked "How should one view Moonshot AI calling out Baidu, where the top 4 search results were not the official webpage?", both Kimi and ERNIE identified the core of the issue as the conflict between the search engine's advertising auction mechanism and user experience/brand protection.
Addressing the question "How should Baidu Search balance the conflict between commercial revenue (e.g., ad auctions) and information accuracy (e.g., prioritizing official sites)?", Kimi responded, "Baidu Search's dilemma is that it acts as both the referee (information indexing) and a player (advertising sales). This model was viable during the PC internet era due to severe information asymmetry. However, in the AI era, once a search engine's authority is lost, it faces irreversible replacement. Long-term, only by preserving the user perception that 'search equals trust' can it compete with rivals in the AI search race. After all, if users don't dare to search for the Kimi official website on Baidu, why would they trust other answers generated by Baidu's AI?"
It is noteworthy that the long-standing search engine issues have evidently negatively impacted Baidu's performance. An analysis of Baidu's operational and financial report data reveals a pronounced weakness in its core search business, with user growth stagnating.
The Q3 2025 financial report showed that Baidu's total revenue was 31.2 billion yuan, a year-on-year decrease of 7%, with a net loss of 11.2 billion yuan. The decline in online marketing revenue, Baidu's core revenue source, was more severe, falling 18% year-on-year to 15.3 billion yuan. This marked the sixth consecutive quarter of decline for this business.
Furthermore, with the advent of the AI era, user search habits are being rapidly reshaped. Search behavior is no longer concentrated on a single engine; reliance on Baidu Search is continuously decreasing. Instead, users are dispersing their searches across multiple platforms like Xiaohongshu, Douyin, and WeChat based on specific needs and contexts, making this multi-platform分流 trend increasingly apparent.
Financial report data indicated that in September of last year, the Baidu App had 708 million monthly active users (MAUs), representing a mere 1% year-on-year increase. The MAU figures for March and June were 724 million and 735 million, with year-on-year growth rates of 7% and 5% respectively. This signifies that the growth rate of Baidu App's MAUs has noticeably slowed, even approaching a standstill.
Comments