Recently, the People's Court of Meilan District of Haikou City handed down a first-instance verdict in the country's first case of a Xiaomi car “not delivered to collect the final payment” case. It found that the formal clause “if the car is not inspected, the final payment must be made within 7 days, otherwise the deposit will be forfeited” was invalid, and ordered Haikou Xiaomi Jingming Technology Co., Ltd. to double refund the car purchase deposit to the consumer Ms. Li for a total of 10,000 yuan. Xiaomi Jingming Technology Co., Ltd. is jointly and severally liable for this debt. Ma Xiang, litigation attorney at Belon Law Firm, told reporters that the ruling in the Xiaomi car deposit case not only provides an important judicial reference for consumer rights protection, but also clearly regulates the transaction rules in the NEV industry's “buy first, then produce” model: no matter how innovative the sales model is, it cannot break through the bottom line of fair trade, and companies need to turn publicity promises into actual compliance actions to fully protect consumers' rights and interests in terms of format design and transaction process regulations. In fact, the pre-sale deposit dispute for Xiaomi cars is not an exception; it is a concentrated exposure of the pre-sale model problem in the automobile industry under intense competition. Currently, the industry lurks a dual core chaos: the data bubble highlights. Some car companies package refundable “small orders” into actual advertisements, causing industry data to be distorted; performance imbalances are prominent, and affected by supply chain fluctuations and insufficient production capacity, many car companies are unable to meet delivery promises, and there are also situations where actual vehicles are inconsistent with publicity, such as shrinking configurations and false battery life.

Recently, the People's Court of Meilan District of Haikou City handed down a first-instance verdict in the country's first case of a Xiaomi car “not delivered to collect the final payment” case. It found that the formal clause “if the car is not inspected, the final payment must be made within 7 days, otherwise the deposit will be forfeited” was invalid, and ordered Haikou Xiaomi Jingming Technology Co., Ltd. to double refund the car purchase deposit to the consumer Ms. Li for a total of 10,000 yuan. Xiaomi Jingming Technology Co., Ltd. is jointly and severally liable for this debt. Ma Xiang, litigation attorney at Belon Law Firm, told reporters that the ruling in the Xiaomi car deposit case not only provides an important judicial reference for consumer rights protection, but also clearly regulates the transaction rules in the NEV industry's “buy first, then produce” model: no matter how innovative the sales model is, it cannot break through the bottom line of fair trade, and companies need to turn publicity promises into actual compliance actions to fully protect consumers' rights and interests in terms of format design and transaction process regulations. In fact, the pre-sale deposit dispute for Xiaomi cars is not an exception; it is a concentrated exposure of the pre-sale model problem in the automobile industry under intense competition. Currently, the industry lurks a dual core chaos: the data bubble highlights. Some car companies package refundable “small orders” into actual advertisements, causing industry data to be distorted; performance imbalances are prominent, and affected by supply chain fluctuations and insufficient production capacity, many car companies are unable to meet delivery promises, and there are also situations where actual vehicles are inconsistent with publicity, such as shrinking configurations and false battery life.