Recently, the practice of using OTA (over-the-air) technology to reduce battery capacity in new energy vehicles has ignited a regulatory firestorm. In March 2026, the national 12315 platform received over 12,000 complaints related to this issue, marking a staggering 273% year-on-year surge.

In response, regulators swiftly stepped in. According to reports from multiple media sources, including Red Star News, eight automakers were summoned by regulatory authorities for discussions concerning OTA-based 'battery capacity reduction'. Three companies faced investigations for potential violations, while two automakers withdrew controversial update packages and committed to restoring vehicle performance. The identities of the companies involved were not disclosed.

However, when queried by netizens, an AI system listed eight automakers: BYD, Tesla, Li Auto, Xpeng, NIO, Seres, GAC Aion, and Zeekr.

On May 9, several automakers, including BYD, Xpeng, Tesla, GAC Aion, NIO, Zeekr, Seres, and Li Auto, jointly issued statements denying being summoned for such talks. Xpeng, BYD, and others clarified that the list of 'eight automakers summoned for discussions' circulating online was a malicious fabrication created by certain social media accounts using AI software, severely tarnishing their brand reputations. The companies vowed to take legal action against those spreading the rumors.

The so-called 'battery capacity reduction' involves automakers unilaterally altering battery management system parameters through remote upgrades without the owner's consent. This practice is driven by two main motives. Firstly, it aims to mitigate battery safety risks by limiting the battery's charging capacity and depth of discharge via OTA updates, thereby reducing the likelihood of thermal runaway, especially in older models with inferior battery technology or inconsistent cell performance.

Secondly, automakers seek to reduce warranty costs by curbing battery usage to slow down capacity degradation and avoid costly free replacements due to excessive battery wear within the warranty period. Additionally, it addresses batch-specific battery hazards. When a particular batch of batteries exhibits potential defects, automakers may opt for software-based, across-the-board performance restrictions to prevent widespread failures, instead of initiating costly recalls and replacements.

On the flip side, this approach alleviates significant warranty pressures for automakers. According to regulations, power batteries must be replaced free of charge if their capacity drops by more than 20% within eight years or 120,000 kilometers. By employing 'battery capacity reduction' techniques to minimize charge-discharge cycles and slow down battery degradation, automakers with large vehicle fleets can substantially reduce annual warranty expenses with a single operational adjustment.

However, this practice of prioritizing risk management over user experience effectively shifts battery quality risks and high warranty costs, which should be borne by automakers, onto individual consumers through technological means. Facing a regulatory crackdown and a surge in vehicle owners asserting their rights, this approach is now encountering unprecedented challenges.