Xiaomi argues, “5,900 USD SU7 Ultra hood isn’t misleading because it’s optional, and we edited our post”
The Nanjing Qinhuai District People’s Court on November 20, 2025, held an evidentiary hearing in the first mainland civil lawsuit over allegations that Xiaomi misled consumers with the SU7 Ultra “perforated carbon-fibre hood, as reported by Sina Finance.” Xiaomi submitted wind‑tunnel reports and other technical documents, arguing that founder Lei Jun’s earlier social media statements were corrected shortly after posting and that there was no subjective intent to mislead buyers. The court did not deliver a judgment at the end of the day.
The hood, an optional part priced at 42,000 yuan (approximately 5,900 USD), was advertised as providing functional airflow to wheel hubs for cooling and improved efficiency. Several owners and independent testers reported that the production hood provided minimal measurable airflow, and teardown analyses showed its internal structure closely resembled that of a conventional hood, with only minor weight reduction. These discrepancies prompted widespread consumer complaints and litigation, with over 100 owners formally filing lawsuits and several hundred more participating in rights‑protection actions.
During the November 20 hearing, Xiaomi’s legal team presented multiple defences. They argued that the hood was not a mandatory purchase option, that social media phrasing was corrected within hours, and that internal technical tests supported the claimed effects. Plaintiffs’ lawyers and commentators have said these technical materials will be scrutinised to determine whether they substantiate Xiaomi’s promotional statements and whether the corrections sufficed to prevent consumer confusion. Key factual issues remain unresolved. The court left them open for further proof.
Separately, the Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court issued a second-instance ruling in one related lawsuit on the same day. It upheld an earlier judgment that Xiaomi committed consumer fraud, requiring a single plaintiff to receive a 20,000 yuan (2,814 USD) deposit refund, 126,000 yuan (17,728 USD) in statutory damages, and 10,000 yuan (1,407 USD) in legal fees, for a total of 156,000 yuan (21,949 USD). That award applies only to the individual case and is not necessarily representative of all plaintiffs.
Editor’s comments:
The Nanjing hearing and related rulings are being closely watched by automakers, consumer groups, and regulators. They test how courts evaluate marketing claims for optional EV performance parts, the evidentiary weight of manufacturer-provided testing, and remedies available to consumers in disputes over vehicle options. The case is expected to influence the way high-value optional components are promoted and legally contested in the Chinese automotive sector.
