- China court ruled Xiaomi used exaggerated marketing for the SU7 Ultra hood design.
- Fraud allegations and additional compensation claims against Xiaomi were rejected.
A court in China has ruled that Xiaomi used exaggerated promotional language while marketing the Xiaomi SU7 Ultra carbon-fibre dual-duct front hood, although the court stopped short of classifying the issue as fraud. The ruling is among the first major legal decisions connected to the automaker’s widely discussed “ducted hood” controversy. The People’s Court of Licheng District in Jinan, Shandong province, delivered the first-instance judgment on May 13 in a lawsuit brought by a buyer of the Xiaomi SU7 Ultra against Xiaomi Auto and its local sales entity.
The court stated that Xiaomi’s promotional materials contained exaggerated elements that violated principles of good-faith marketing. However, the court concluded that the company neither fabricated facts nor intentionally concealed information from consumers. As a result, the plaintiff’s request for triple compensation damages and repayment of double the purchase deposit was rejected. According to the ruling, the vehicle purchase agreement signed on March 7, 2025, will officially terminate on July 4, 2025. Xiaomi must refund the buyer’s 20,000 yuan deposit within ten days after the judgment becomes effective, while the company bears joint responsibility for the payment.
Court Examines Xiaomi’s Hood Marketing Claims
The dispute focused on Xiaomi’s optional dual-air-duct hood offered for the SU7 Ultra performance sedan. Several owners and online reviewers previously questioned whether the hood’s visible openings delivered meaningful aerodynamic performance or cooling improvements after conducting informal airflow and cooling tests. During court proceedings, Xiaomi argued that company founder Lei Jun had already clarified during the October 2024 launch event that the production-spec vehicle differed significantly from the original prototype showcased earlier.
Xiaomi further argued that references to a “replica” hood design primarily referred to the external appearance rather than promising a fully identical internal structure or matching performance specifications. The company also explained that the SU7 Ultra uses an AGS active intake grille system, which automatically closes while the vehicle is stationary. According to Xiaomi, many online airflow demonstrations did not accurately reflect real operating conditions because of this active aerodynamic configuration.
Xiaomi Presents Technical Evidence During Trial
During the hearing, Xiaomi submitted a wind tunnel evaluation report prepared by the China Automotive Technology and Research Centre. The report reportedly indicated that the ducted hood produced limited aerodynamic downforce gains, minor airflow extraction benefits, and auxiliary brake cooling support under certain operating conditions. Xiaomi maintained that the hood still offered measurable functionality, even if the performance impact was smaller than some consumers expected based on promotional messaging.
The company also informed the court that it had already revised related advertising descriptions after customer complaints emerged online. Xiaomi additionally apologised to affected customers and introduced corrective measures for existing and future owners. These measures included offering free replacement standard hoods for undelivered vehicles as well as compensation points for customers who had already taken delivery of vehicles equipped with the optional carbon-fibre hood package.
Latest Ruling Follows Earlier Legal Proceedings
The latest court decision follows a previous legal development linked to the same hood controversy, where Xiaomi reportedly secured a procedural advantage in an earlier dispute related to the marketing issue. The case has continued attracting attention within China’s automotive market because it highlights growing scrutiny around promotional claims for high-performance electric vehicles and optional aerodynamic components.
In March, Xiaomi also launched a free aerodynamic upgrade initiative for SU7 Ultra owners equipped with the ducted hood configuration. The company’s domestic sales performance for the Xiaomi SU7 remained strong despite the controversy. Xiaomi SU7 sales in China reached 26,826 units during April 2026, representing a 240.3% increase compared with the previous month, although volumes were down 6.2% year-on-year. The SU7 lineup accounted for 73.1% of total Xiaomi brand sales during the month. Earlier monthly sales figures included 7,882 units in March and 1,133 units in January.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did the court rule against Xiaomi in the SU7 Ultra hood dispute?
The court ruled that Xiaomi used exaggerated marketing language while promoting the SU7 Ultra carbon-fibre dual-duct hood. Judges determined that some promotional claims did not fully align with the hood’s actual aerodynamic and cooling performance in real-world conditions. However, the court also concluded that Xiaomi did not intentionally deceive consumers or fabricate technical information. Because fraud was not established, the plaintiff’s demands for treble damages and additional compensation were rejected, while Xiaomi was only ordered to refund the original vehicle purchase deposit.
What corrective actions did Xiaomi take after customer complaints?
Xiaomi revised several promotional descriptions related to the SU7 Ultra ducted hood after consumer concerns surfaced online. The company also issued apologies and introduced corrective measures for affected buyers. These included offering free replacement standard hoods for undelivered vehicles and compensation points for existing owners who had already received vehicles fitted with the optional carbon-fibre hood package. Xiaomi additionally presented technical reports during the trial to support its claims that the hood still provided limited aerodynamic and brake-cooling functionality under certain operating conditions.
Click above to visit the official source.