A lawsuit between a financial media outlet and a listed company has drawn attention, a scenario that has escalated into a full legal process with both parties acting as plaintiff and defendant. This case involves Guangzhou Jinplus Network Technology Co., Ltd., which operates the media platform 'Golden Horn Finance,' suing NIO Co., Ltd. over a reputation rights dispute.
According to the complaint, Golden Horn Finance is seeking a court order for NIO to cease infringement, issue a public apology, and pay 50,000 yuan in economic damages, along with covering the associated legal costs. This case stands out as one of the rare instances in recent years where a financial media outlet has proactively filed a reputation rights lawsuit against a company based on the company's public statements.
Reasons Behind Golden Horn Finance's Lawsuit Against NIO
The dispute stems from a post on NIO's official Weibo account. On July 3, 2026, NIO's legal department shared updates on several online rights protection cases. It alleged that the operator of 'Golden Horn Finance,' Guangzhou Jinplus Network Technology Co., Ltd., had "fabricated multiple pieces of false information inconsistent with NIO's actual operating data and financial status." The post claimed that a first-instance court had found the relevant actions constituted infringement and had ordered a halt to the infringement, a public apology, and compensation for losses.
Golden Horn Finance argues that NIO's public statements included negative evaluations of their reporting that went beyond the scope of the court's findings, harming their social reputation and thus constituting an infringement of their reputation rights. In the complaint, Golden Horn Finance presents three main arguments. First, it contends that the financial and operational data cited in their reporting came from third-party sources such as The Paper, China Business News, and Wind Financial Terminal, and was not fabricated but rather based on analysis of publicly available information. Second, it notes that while a first-instance court ruled on NIO's original lawsuit, Golden Horn Finance has appealed the decision. As the case is pending a second-instance trial, the first-instance judgment is not yet legally effective. Third, it asserts that NIO's use of the term "fabricated" in its Weibo post goes beyond the scope of the first-instance court's findings. Golden Horn Finance argues that "fabricated" carries a derogatory connotation, implying deliberate creation of falsehoods. In contrast, the first-instance court's basis for finding liability was related to "failing to conduct necessary verification" of third-party data and "lacking rigor in citations," not an outright finding of "fabrication."
Golden Horn Finance concludes that NIO's statements could mislead the public, negatively impacting its business reputation and social standing, and thus constitute reputational harm. The media outlet further argues that, despite the first-instance judgment not being final, NIO's public disclosure of the case progress via its official Weibo account has led to further dissemination across online platforms. As of the report's publication, searches for "Golden Horn Finance" and related terms on platforms like Baidu show that multiple websites and media outlets have covered or republished the incident. The case was officially accepted for filing by the Nansha District People's Court in Guangzhou on the afternoon of August 3.
Scarcity of Proactive Legal Action by Media
In recent years, cases where companies sue media outlets have become common, particularly in the automotive industry. As competition among automakers intensifies, topics like product quality, business conditions, and business models frequently become focal points of public debate. Companies often use public statements, complaints, or legal action to protect their brand image. Recently, automakers like Xiaomi Automobile, BYD, and Li Auto have been involved in legal disputes with media over online content. In contrast, cases where media outlets proactively sue companies are relatively rare. More often, media outlets respond to a company's lawsuit by filing a counterclaim or a separate suit to defend their rights.
The legal battle between Li Xiaoye, founder of Wild Horse Finance, and Alibaba over online comments was a notable precedent in the legal confrontation between media and large corporations. The dispute began with an online debate in 2017. Li Xiaoye subsequently filed multiple reputation rights lawsuits in the Beijing Internet Court. Ultimately, the court's ruling required an Alibaba public relations representative to issue a public apology to Li Xiaoye. In the internet age, the relationship between corporations and financial media is evolving. For companies, brand reputation, market confidence, and investor expectations can all be impacted by online information, making it common to strengthen public opinion management and use legal means to address disputes. For media outlets, their value lies not only in disseminating information but also in observing and supervising corporate operations and capital market behavior. However, media outlets must also ensure reliable sources and thorough fact-checking in their reporting to avoid legal risks from imprecise expression.
The dispute between Golden Horn Finance and NIO reflects a broader trend where conflicts between corporations and financial media are moving from purely public opinion battles into more formalized legal channels. The outcome of this lawsuit will ultimately depend on the court's judgment of the evidence presented by both sides regarding whether the statements constitute reputational infringement. This lawsuit is a microcosm of the changing relationship between corporations and financial media in recent years: previously, it was more common for companies to sue media outlets over published content. Now, as media outlets become more legally aware, they are also beginning to proactively use judicial avenues to defend their rights when they feel they have been wronged.
Comments