A court in Jinan has ruled that Xiaomi’s marketing for the SU7 Ultra’s carbon-fiber dual-duct front hood was exaggerated but did not amount to fraud. The judge ordered Xiaomi to refund a buyer’s 20,000 yuan deposit and terminate the purchase agreement, while rejecting claims for treble damages and other compensation.
A court in China has delivered an important first-instance ruling in the dispute over the Xiaomi SU7 Ultra’s optional carbon-fiber dual-duct front hood. The judge found that Xiaomi’s promotional language went too far, but stopped short of calling it fraud.
According to Sina, the People’s Court of Licheng District in Jinan, Shandong province, ruled on May 13 in a case brought by an SU7 Ultra buyer against Xiaomi Auto and its local sales subsidiary. The court said the company’s marketing contained exaggerated statements and breached the principle of good faith.
What the court decided
The court rejected the plaintiff’s claim that Xiaomi had fabricated facts or deliberately hidden the truth. On that basis, it denied requests for treble damages and double repayment of the deposit, which are often sought in consumer fraud disputes.
Instead, the judge ordered the purchase agreement signed on March 7, 2025, to be terminated effective July 4, 2025. Xiaomi must also return the buyer’s 20,000 yuan deposit, equal to about 2,940 USD, within ten days after the judgment takes legal effect.
The court also declined additional compensation claims tied to the optional carbon-fiber hood package. Xiaomi was assigned joint liability for the refund.
Why the hood became controversial
The dispute centers on the SU7 Ultra’s optional dual-air-duct hood, a carbon-fiber part marketed as having functional aerodynamic and cooling benefits. Some owners and online testers later questioned whether the hood openings delivered meaningful real-world performance.
The controversy intensified after informal tests circulated online. Those tests raised doubts about whether the hood’s ducts were doing more than changing the car’s appearance.
Xiaomi’s defense in court
In its defense, Xiaomi said founder Lei Jun had already explained at the October 2024 launch that the production car would differ substantially from the prototype. The company said references to a “replica” were meant to describe the exterior design, not a fully identical internal structure or performance package.
Xiaomi also argued that the vehicle’s AGS active intake grille closes automatically when the car is stationary, which could make some online airflow tests misleading. The automaker said it submitted a wind-tunnel report from the China Automotive Technology and Research Centre showing only limited downforce improvement, limited airflow extraction, and some auxiliary brake-cooling effect.
What Xiaomi changed after complaints
After consumer complaints emerged, Xiaomi said it revised some of its promotional wording and issued an apology. The company also offered free replacement standard hoods for cars that had not yet been delivered, along with compensation points for existing owners.
The ruling follows an earlier case in which Xiaomi reportedly won a procedural victory in a separate dispute related to the same hood issue. The legal fight appears to be one part of a broader customer-relations challenge around the SU7 Ultra’s optional equipment and marketing claims.
Broader context: Xiaomi’s EV momentum continues
The hood case comes as Xiaomi’s electric vehicle business continues to grow quickly in China. China EV DataTracker figures show domestic SU7 sales reached 26,826 units in April 2026, up 240.3% from March but down 6.2% year on year.
The SU7 accounted for 73.1% of Xiaomi brand sales in April. Earlier this year, monthly volumes included 1,133 units in January and 7,882 units in March, underscoring the brand’s rapid sales expansion.
Why this matters
This case is significant because it shows how Chinese courts may distinguish between exaggerated advertising and legally actionable fraud in the fast-moving EV market. For automakers, it is a reminder that performance-themed options must be described carefully, especially when customers may test and scrutinize them publicly.
For buyers, the ruling is a signal that even when a company is found to have overreached in marketing, the legal remedy may be limited to refunding the purchase and not necessarily full fraud-based damages. That distinction could matter in future disputes involving EV features, optional hardware, and software-driven claims.
Why This Matters
This case matters because it tests the line between aggressive marketing and consumer fraud in China’s electric vehicle market. As EV brands compete on performance, design, and technology, courts may increasingly be asked to decide whether promotional claims were merely overstated or legally deceptive.
It also has practical implications for buyers of optional equipment. The ruling suggests that even when a feature is marketed in a way a court later finds exaggerated, the remedy may be a refund rather than the larger penalties often associated with fraud claims.
Key Specs
- Case: Buyer lawsuit over Xiaomi SU7 Ultra optional carbon-fiber dual-duct front hood
- Court: People’s Court of Licheng District, Jinan, Shandong province
- Ruling date: May 13, 2026
- Finding: Marketing was exaggerated and violated good faith, but was not fraud
- Refund ordered: 20,000 yuan (about 2,940 USD)
- Purchase agreement: Signed March 7, 2025; termination effective July 4, 2025
- Rejected claims: Treble damages, double deposit repayment, and extra compensation for the hood package
- Related sales data: Xiaomi SU7 domestic sales in April 2026 were 26,826 units
Source: CarNewsChina
