Controversy surrounds Xiaomi’s foray into the electric vehicle market, with a growing chorus of SU7 Extremely owners alleging false advertising regarding its high-profile twin air duct carbon fibre hood. The dispute has escalated significantly following the discovery of discrepancies, as independent audits revealed a staggering 42,000 yuan (approximately Despite its $5,800 price tag, this elective hood option purports to provide aerodynamic benefits, yet these claims are dubious and lack tangible proof of any meaningful efficiency improvements. As public outcry intensifies, China’s regulatory authorities are refraining from intervening in a dispute, instead urging affected parties to seek resolution through legal channels.
Timeline of occasions
Xiaomi unleashes the Mi Mix Alpha 2 Extreme, boasting a premium carbon fiber hood at an affordable price of 42,000 yuan (approximately $6,200) – a stunning upgrade for discerning tech enthusiasts. 5,800 USD) choice. The innovative model features twin air ducts strategically designed to optimize both cooling and aerodynamics, meticulously replicating its prototype counterpart.
Xiaomi CEO Lei Jun reiterated his statement during a live stream, stating that the redesigned inner ducts for wheel cooling make up the hood’s composition. The move has piqued consumer interest, with many anticipating tangible aerodynamic benefits.
Deliveries of the Su-7 Extremely Begin. Homeowners quickly discover that the carbon fibre hood lacks meaningful air vents. Despite impartial video reviews suggesting limited airflow enhancements, the findings starkly contrast Xiaomi’s initial claims.
Xiaomi has issued an apology, acknowledging that the product description was “not clear enough.” As a gesture of goodwill, the company is offering compensation to affected customers.
Undelivered vehicles offer an option to upgrade to a standard aluminum hood, subject to a 30-40 week lead time.
Delivered vehicles come with a significant bonus of approximately 20,000 loyalty points, equivalent to 2,000 yuan or 280 USD.
Homeowners have rejected the offered supply, deeming it insufficient in meeting their needs. Concerns are mounting among buyers, including Xi Dong, who feels duped into purchasing an inefficient product instead of the efficient one they were promised. In response, a coalition of over 400 consumer advocates has been formed to push for either reimbursement or revised order fulfillment from the company.
Xiaomi’s co-founder Lei Jun sparks controversy by describing the current era as “the most challenging since founding Xiaomi” on Weibo, candidly acknowledging a “crisis of faith”. The publish attracts fierce criticism, prompting authorities to swiftly restrict access to his comment section.
The property owner’s group issues a collective statement and announces that it has retained legal counsel to prepare litigation. Authorized specialists weigh in. According to Professor Dai Shengyi of Zhongnan College of Economics and Law, Xiaomi may have contravened the Client Rights Safeguard Regulation. Customers may seek compensation for losses, including refunds and triple damages (“退一赔三”), as a result of our services.
Dai predicts that Xiaomi may incur additional costs of approximately 200,000 to 2 million yuan, which could potentially impact the company’s financial performance. The imposition of fines ranging from $27,500 to $275,000 under the Anti-Unfair Competition Regulation for deceptive marketing practices.
The Beijing Financial Technological Improvement Space Bureau of Commerce and Finance has officially concluded its investigation. The bureau has issued a statement to Chinese-language media stating that no evidence of wrongdoing was found, while encouraging disputing parties to settle their differences through legal proceedings. The bureau refused to make any further comments when questioned by journalists.
Authorized and trade implications
As regulatory bodies diverge on a resolution, Xiaomi SU7 Ultra homeowners face a difficult decision: either settle for a limited payout or pursue legal action against the company. Will the controversy establish a landmark precedent in China’s burgeoning electric vehicle market, with significant implications for clients’ enforcement of efficiency claims and aftermarket options?
What began as a marketing opportunity for Xiaomi has morphed into a reputation-shattering crisis that will force the tech industry to reexamine its approach to transparency and accountability in product design.
