Xiaomi SU7 Ultra: Carbon Fiber Hood Technical Dissection

Suzhou Court upholds verdict on false advertising surrounding SU7 Ultra’s dual-vent carbon fiber hood. Customers were refunded deposits, triple the cost of accessories and legal fees, opening the door to chain lawsuits.

The Suzhou Intermediate People's Court (Jiangsu) has rejected Xiaomi Auto's appeal and upheld the consumer-friendly verdict in the case involving the dual-air duct carbon fiber hood of the SU7 Ultra. According to Autohome, Xiaomi must return the 20,000 yuan deposit, pay 126,000 yuan in compensation (three times the 42,000 yuan accessory price), and pay 10,000 yuan in legal fees.

Xiaomi SU7 Ultra electric scooter with a hood with two air ducts. Photo: Autohome

Carbon fiber hood: claims and reality

The dispute arose from a complaint that the dual-vent carbon fiber hood was an optional accessory that was largely cosmetic and did not provide the advertised functionality. When disassembled and compared to the standard aluminum hood, the internal structure was said to be nearly identical and only 1.3 kg lighter, according to the case file reported by Autohome.

What the court has established

The judgment upheld the first instance decision, determining the act of “false advertising” in the case of the dual-air duct carbon fiber hood accessory. The specific legal consequences include: refund of 20,000 yuan deposit, 126,000 yuan compensation (equivalent to three times the accessory price of 42,000 yuan) and legal fees of 10,000 yuan.

Product design and messaging: “two air lines” — aesthetics or functionality

The “double air duct” detail on the hood is a visual highlight of the SU7 Ultra. However, in this case, the customer claimed that the detail did not provide the function expected from the advertisement, leading to the lawsuit. The court sided with the consumer after the review process, reinforcing the need for transparency between marketing claims and the actual capabilities of the components.

User experience and company feedback

On May 7, Xiaomi proposed two solutions: allowing the conversion to an aluminum hood for vehicles that had not yet been delivered within a limited time; or giving 20,000 points (equivalent to 2,000 yuan) to customers who had received their vehicles or had placed orders for accessories before the modification deadline. These proposals were not accepted by some car owners and potential buyers, leading to the lawsuit and the above-mentioned judgment.

Performance: 1.3 kg figure and limited information

According to the lawsuit, the carbon fiber hood is only 1.3 kg lighter than the standard aluminum version. No other figures on the aerodynamic, cooling, or performance effects of the SU7 Ultra are published in the documents related to this case.

Safety and assistive technology

The lawsuit centers on the dual-vent carbon fiber hood feature. No data on the SU7 Ultra's driver assistance systems or independent safety ratings are mentioned in this information source.

Price, positioning and legal consequences

The dual-air duct carbon fiber hood accessory costs 42,000 yuan. In the case, the user was refunded 20,000 yuan in deposit, compensated 126,000 yuan and paid 10,000 yuan in legal fees. According to CarNewsChina, at least 300 people in an online advocacy group had previously requested refunds and corresponding compensation; these cases may continue to take the same legal steps as the user who won the lawsuit.

Item	Value	Note
Carbon fiber hood accessories price	42,000 yuan	According to Autohome
Weight difference compared to aluminum cap	−1.3 kg	According to the case file
The deposit is refundable.	20,000 yuan	According to the verdict
Compensation for users	126,000 yuan	Triple the price of accessories
Legal costs	10,000 yuan	According to the verdict
Size of group requesting refund/compensation	At least 300 people	According to CarNewsChina

Brief conclusion

The Suzhou Court’s ruling underscores the need for transparency between marketing messages and the actual function of components. With the SU7 Ultra, the dual-vent carbon fiber hood became the focus of the dispute, leading to deposit refunds, compensation, and legal costs for the manufacturer. The development could lead to more similar claims, putting product communication standards to the test.

• Noteworthy points: The company has proposed a plan to exchange accessories or give points after May 7.
• Points to note: The Court upheld the ruling regarding “false advertising”; additional technical details other than this accessory were not disclosed in the case.

AD Advertising

Source: https://baonghean.vn/xiaomi-su7-ultra-boc-tach-ky-thuat-nap-ca-po-soi-carbon-10309241.html