The controversy surrounding remote online upgrades (OTA) ‘locking battery capacity’ in new energy vehicles has resurfaced.
On the evening of May 9, in response to widespread online reports claiming that “eight new energy vehicle companies were summoned for discussions and three were placed under investigation due to battery-locking issues,” the China Association of Automobile Manufacturers (CAAM) stated that the claim was false.
“We have noticed the online information and specifically verified it with the relevant authorities and enterprises. Based on our understanding, as of now, no regulatory or enforcement actions such as summoning or investigation related to the online claims have been initiated by the relevant authorities. The content circulating online lacks an official source and is seriously inconsistent with the facts,” said Liu Yan, Deputy Secretary General of CAAM.
On April 17, an article titled ‘Over 12,000 Complaints Within One Month, Up 273% Year-on-Year: How Should This Chronic Problem of New Energy Vehicles Be Addressed?’ was published on a media outlet’s official WeChat account. The article mentioned that in March 2026, complaints regarding automakers’ OTA-related battery capacity restrictions on the national 12315 platform exceeded 12,000 within one month, marking a 273% year-on-year increase. Eventually, official regulatory intervention occurred, with eight automakers reportedly summoned for discussions, three investigated for violations, and two withdrawing controversial upgrade packages while pledging to restore performance.
More than half a month later, the article gained traction online, drawing industry attention. Although the article did not disclose the names of the summoned companies, at noon on May 9, a netizen queried a network AI application, which subsequently posted a fabricated list of the ‘eight summoned automakers’ on social media.
Subsequently, the eight involved automakers—BYD, Tesla, XPeng Motors, Li Auto, Nio, Seres AITO, Geely Zeekr, and GAC Aion—all issued statements refuting the claims as malicious AI-generated rumors, affirming that no discussions or warnings had taken place. Specifically, the ‘BYD News Anti-Disinformation Office’ issued a statement on its official Weibo account, asserting that false rumors about BYD being summoned or investigated were entirely baseless and urging the public not to believe or spread such misinformation. It also condemned certain online accounts for maliciously disseminating false information, deliberately misleading the public, and disrupting the online discourse environment. Evidence has been collected, and legal action will be pursued against the responsible parties. Meanwhile, XPeng Motors’ legal department denied being summoned by regulators over the battery-locking matter, stating that the company had not received any such warning or faced investigation. A Tesla representative confirmed that reports of the company being summoned were inaccurate, emphasizing that all Tesla software updates undergo rigorous testing and registration. Zeekr stated that it had not received any notice of such discussions, condemning malicious attacks and defamation while collecting evidence to safeguard its rights. It expressed hope for maintaining a positive atmosphere for China’s new energy vehicle industry alongside industry partners and users.
“Battery-locking” refers to certain automakers, without consumer consent, privately modifying parameters of the vehicle’s battery management system via OTA remote upgrades or in-store software updates. This limits the upper charging limit, discharge depth, charge/discharge power, and other factors of the power battery, leading to reduced range, slower charging speeds, and decreased performance.
“In the era of ‘software-defined vehicles,’ OTA upgrades have become one of the key ways automakers provide optimized services to consumers,” said a relevant industry insider. When consumers purchase a vehicle, performance metrics such as range are core elements of the sales contract. Automakers who unilaterally reduce vehicle performance without obtaining owner consent are in breach of contract, essentially constituting a unilateral change to the agreement. “In reality, ‘battery-locking’ is a low-cost, dynamically adjustable safety or remedial strategy. Companies should not sacrifice performance or degrade user experience in exchange for supposed product quality and safety.”
On March 22, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) and the State Administration for Market Regulation jointly released the ‘Notice on Regulating Remote Online Upgrade (OTA) Practices for New Energy Vehicles,’ imposing four strict constraints: prohibiting silent mandatory upgrades, requiring at least seven days’ advance notice to vehicle owners regarding OTA content, risks, and impacts, with owners retaining the right to refuse; forbidding battery capacity restrictions or performance downgrades via OTA unless explicitly agreed to in writing by the owner; banning the masking of defects to evade recalls, mandating formal recall procedures for hardware defects; and requiring full documentation and regulatory oversight of all OTA upgrade content. Additionally, the mandatory national standard ‘Technical Requirements and Testing Methods for Vehicular Internet Online Upgrade Security’ (GB/T47325-2026), issued on March 31, specifies security requirements and testing methods for online upgrades and will come into effect on October 1.
Reporters from Cailian Press noted that the original report claiming ‘eight new energy vehicle companies were summoned due to battery-locking issues’ has since been revised. The sentence stating that ‘eight automakers were summoned, three investigated for violations, and two withdrew controversial upgrade packages while promising to restore performance’ was removed. A correction was added in the comments section clarifying that the report addressing battery-locking concerns gained widespread attention, but certain wording caused misunderstandings. The corrected statement reads: According to incomplete statistics from this outlet, between 2020 and now, eight automakers have been summoned over issues such as abnormal acceleration, battery fires, and remote vehicle upgrades (OTA). Among them, three were investigated for violations, and two withdrew disputed upgrade packages while committing to restoring performance.
This article is reprinted from Cailian Press, edited by Arthur Chen of Zhitong Finance.
