近日，數百名車主因小米汽車的退定爭議向法院提起訴訟，事件引發社會廣泛關注。多數案件因小米提出“管轄權異議”而拖延，立案相對容易，但真正開庭審理卻困難重重，截至目前，百人起訴中僅有一例消費者獲勝。2025年11月18日，海口市美蘭區法院對其中一起消費者李女士的訴訟作出一審判決，認定小米汽車要求消費者“未驗車即需在七日內支付尾款，否則定金不退”的格式條款無效，並要求小米雙倍返還定金共計1萬元人民幣。法院指出，這一條款剝奪消費者驗車的基本權利，增加付款義務，違反公平交易原則。

小米汽車的銷售模式也因此受到質疑。該公司採用線上預訂、線下提車的直營模式，但由於交付週期長（普遍超過三個月），消費者在未驗車的情況下就被催促支付尾款，引發不滿。不少車主反映，銷售方以“備料、生產、運輸需資金”等理由施壓，甚至威脅消費者“逾期將沒收定金”，讓消費者感到權益受到損害。

事件發酵後，2025年11月26日，新華社旗下《新華每日電訊》發文批評小米汽車的銷售模式，指出“汽車銷售創新不能突破公平交易底線”。文章強調，小米利用格式條款將風險轉嫁給消費者，損害消費者權益。雖肯定直營模式在透明化上的優勢，但明確指出企業在創新銷售模式時，必須以消費者權益為先。

此次司法判決和央媒評論引發對新能源汽車銷售模式的廣泛討論。許多分析指出，這一事件對行業形成警示，提醒車企在創新銷售流程時必須兼顧公平與消費者權益。小米汽車方面回應稱將優化流程，但尚未明確修改引發爭議的條款。整體而言，此事件既凸顯新興車企在創新銷售中可能忽視消費者權益的問題，也促使行業反思如何在保障公平交易的前提下進行業務創新。

Recently, hundreds of car buyers in China filed lawsuits against Xiaomi Auto over disputes related to deposit refunds, drawing widespread public attention. Many of these cases have been delayed due to Xiaomi’s repeated objections based on “jurisdictional issues,” making filing a lawsuit relatively easy but actual court hearings difficult. As of now, only one out of hundreds of cases has resulted in a consumer victory. On November 18, 2025, the Meilan District Court in Haikou ruled in the first instance on a case filed by a consumer, Ms. Li, declaring that Xiaomi Auto’s contractual clause requiring buyers to pay the balance within seven days without inspecting the vehicle—otherwise forfeiting the deposit—was invalid. The court ordered Xiaomi to refund the deposit at double the amount, totaling 10,000 RMB. The ruling emphasized that the clause deprived consumers of the basic right to inspect their vehicles and imposed unfair payment obligations, violating the principle of fair trade.

Xiaomi Auto’s sales model has also come under scrutiny. The company uses a direct sales model where customers order online and pick up their cars offline. However, due to long delivery times—commonly exceeding three months—buyers were pressured to pay the remaining balance before inspecting their vehicles, leading to dissatisfaction. Some consumers reported that sales representatives pressured them by citing the need for funds for “materials, production, and transportation,” and even threatened that deposits would be forfeited if payment deadlines were not met, causing further concern over consumer rights.

The controversy escalated when, on November 26, 2025, Xinhua Daily Telegraph, a publication under China’s Xinhua News Agency, criticized Xiaomi Auto’s sales practices. The article stated that “innovation in car sales cannot cross the line of fair trade,” highlighting that Xiaomi used standardized contractual clauses to transfer risks to consumers, thereby harming their rights. While the report acknowledged the transparency benefits of the direct sales model, it stressed that companies must prioritize consumer rights when innovating sales methods.

This court ruling and the subsequent commentary by a major state media outlet have sparked extensive discussion about the sales practices of new energy vehicle companies. Analysts note that the incident serves as a warning to the industry: while innovation in sales processes is important, it must be balanced with fairness and protection of consumer interests. Xiaomi Auto responded by stating it will optimize its processes, though it has not explicitly amended the disputed contractual clauses. Overall, the case highlights both the risks that emerging automakers face when innovating sales models and the need for the industry to reflect on how to protect consumers while pursuing business innovation.