One year after Xiaomi's "Hoodgate," sales claim they can "deliver one, return one," sparking dissatisfaction among car owners

(Source: Jinwan News)

Reprinted from: Jinwan News

It has been nearly a year since the controversy over the Xiaomi SU7 Ultra punch-hole version’s promotional campaign. Recently, some car owners reported to Jin Yun reporters that there has been new progress in their rights protection efforts, “Many owners have received notices from sales, allowing them to get a refund through the ‘trade one, get one free’ method.”

“The meaning is that if someone successfully places an order using my account to buy a car, I can get the original 20k yuan deposit back.” A car owner straightforwardly said. In response, Jin Yun reporters verified with several owners, most of whom said they had received related notices, but some expressed they do not accept it.

Zhang Xueji Motorcycle founder Zhang Xue also publicly discussed the Xiaomi “hood door” incident in an interview, stating: “If I were Lei Jun, I would give you two options when the punch-hole hood incident happened: first, refund the price difference of the hood; second, for those who haven’t taken delivery, cancel the order.”

To get a refund of the 20k yuan deposit, one must switch to purchase a new car costing over 300,000 yuan

In May 2025, the Xiaomi SU7 Ultra “punch-hole hood” controversy erupted. At that time, several pre-order owners publicly questioned Xiaomi, claiming that during the launch event and promotional materials, the “punch-hole hood” was described as a performance component with aerodynamic functions, but the actual vehicle only had decorative design with no real function. After the controversy intensified, many owners demanded to return the car and get their 20k yuan deposit back. Xiaomi did not directly refund but offered 20k points or upgrade options.

As of now, the dispute remains unresolved, and most owners have not received refunds.

However, some owners reported to Jin Yun that recently they received notices from sales staff about “trade one, get one free.” “Your Ultra order can now be traded one for one, meaning if someone around you is considering a Xiaomi SU7 Max or YU7 Max in stock, placing an order with your account can cancel your deposit.”

Shanghai owner Lin Sheng told Jin Yun that after learning about the “trade one, get one free” policy, he immediately confirmed with the salesperson, who explained: “But for Ultra, it’s only limited to switching to purchase the in-stock models SU7 Max and YU7 Max, using the same mi ID, but the registration can be changed to your friend’s name.”

Jin Yun found that the two models available for transfer are priced starting at 303.9k yuan and 329.9k yuan. The specific prices may be higher than the official guide price due to optional accessories.

Some sales staff also said they could help owners who want to return their deposits find potential buyers, but only if the original owner would “lose a little.”

Guangdong owner Li Liang told Jin Yun that a salesperson said over the phone that the policy requires switching to purchase only the in-stock models SU7 Max and YU7 Max, and the original owner must use their Xiaomi ID. “He asked us to sell a stock unit, and it should be worth roughly the same, then he’s willing to refund your deposit.”

The salesperson explained to Li Liang that because the operation process of this policy is complicated and might cause trouble for the new owner, they would need to offer some discounts or concessions, hoping the original owner would bear part of the cost. “For example, for the 20k yuan deposit, you could give me a few thousand yuan back; otherwise, we can’t bear this loss, so we need your full cooperation.” Li Liang responded: “I can cooperate, but I also can’t lose too much.”

Some owners expressed disagreement with the policy: “If no one can take over their order, they won’t refund the 20k yuan.” A Hangzhou owner said, “This isn’t a refund; it’s asking me to help them sell the car and give a commission.”

Jin Yun learned that not all owners requesting a deposit refund received this notice. Some inquired with sales staff and were told: “We have gradually contacted some order users with the trade one, get one free policy, but feedback has been mixed, so we haven’t reached everyone yet.”

Dissatisfaction with the solution, multiple owners have filed lawsuits

Regarding Xiaomi’s “trade one, get one free” policy, some interviewed owners expressed disagreement: “They only accept a refund of the deposit.”

A Chengdu owner said: “I think Xiaomi’s problem is, they’re willing to refund the money but don’t admit it. They can say publicly that the user has switched cars.” An owner from Hangzhou said: “This isn’t even a refund; buying another car means Xiaomi still profits.”

Shanghai owner Lin Sheng explained to Jin Yun: “They mean if someone takes over, then they’ll refund you.” He told the reporter that, similar to most owners, he placed an order after the official promotion at the end of February 2025, but later learned that the promotion might have exaggerated claims, and when he asked for a refund of the 20k yuan deposit, it was refused. In May last year, he filed a lawsuit at the local court, which held its first hearing earlier this year. The case has not yet received a first-instance judgment.

In addition, owners from Changsha, Shaoxing, Foshan, and other places have also filed lawsuits locally. Lin Sheng said, “One case in Changsha was lost by the owner, Shaoxing was dismissed due to jurisdiction issues, Foshan’s case was quickly judged, and it’s said they might order a refund of the deposit, but no judgment has been issued yet.”

In May last year, when public opinion erupted and Mr. Gao, who led a rights protection group of over 400 owners, accepted an offline negotiation invitation from two Xiaomi senior executives. At that time, Mr. Gao told reporters he felt Xiaomi’s sincerity and discussed specific solutions. But just days after the negotiations, a notice from Xiaomi’s legal department about a “black PR case” again put rights defenders in the spotlight. He said, “Owners are acting legally and reasonably, but when they issue such statements, it turns into malicious attacks, and we are just tools in business battles.” “If rights are not protected, our reputation is further damaged.”

Mr. Gao told Jin Yun that nearly a year has passed since the last offline meeting, “and there’s been no follow-up.” He said he filed a lawsuit at the Shenzhen Bao’an District People’s Court last June, but has not yet received a case registration notice.

Zhang Xue on Xiaomi’s “hood door” incident: I used to quite like Lei Jun

On the 30th of March, Zhang Xue, who gained fame after founding Zhang Xue Motor and winning at the 2026 World Superbike Championship (WSBK) in Portugal, was dubbed the “Lei Jun of the motorcycle world” by netizens. He also publicly discussed this incident in an interview.

Zhang Xue said: “Actually, I used to quite like Lei Jun.” “Lei Jun, I think he’s very impressive. He’s quick at building cars, and he’s often on the front lines.”

Regarding the punch-hole hood incident, he said in the interview: “If I were Lei Jun, I would give you two options when the punch-hole hood incident happened: first, refund the price difference of the hood; second, for those who haven’t taken delivery, cancel the order.”

In Zhang Xue’s view, doing these two things would greatly reduce the “negative points” others might criticize him for, and it wouldn’t affect Lei Jun personally. He straightforwardly said: “How much is the full refund for the hood? That money, in terms of reputation and impact, can be completely ignored.”

Since the controversy erupted last year, many industry insiders have publicly discussed the “hood door” incident.

Zhai Wei, executive director of the Competition Law Research Center at East China University of Political Science and Law, said in an interview: “Based on publicly available information, Xiaomi’s promotion of the ‘punch-hole hood’ involved some biased product descriptions and ambiguous, vague language. This may constitute illegal advertising behavior under the Advertising Law and Anti-Unfair Competition Law, and also infringe consumers’ right to know.”

Pán Helin, member of the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology’s Information and Communication Economy Expert Committee, commented publicly: “Car companies should create ‘differences’ and ‘personalities,’ and these are supported by their technological strength. Xiaomi’s car-making needs to maintain long-term R&D patience. The most important thing is safety, not just relying on ‘gimmicks,’ but being down-to-earth.”

On social media platforms, there are also many voices supporting Xiaomi. A blogger publicly stated: “The punch-hole hood incident, isn’t it all over? Xiaomi has already provided solutions: first, give 20k points as compensation; second, offer upgrade options; and finally, they even gave free upgrades for the punch-hole hood. What more is there to solve?”

(Jin Yun News Reporter Peng Junyong, Intern Reporter Han Xu; interviewees are pseudonyms)