Source: Zhiche Technology, National Business Daily

On May 9, reports surfaced online claiming that "eight new energy vehicle companies were summoned for talks regarding OTA battery locking, with three under investigation." The list included major automakers such as BYD, Tesla, XPeng, Li Auto, NIO, AITO, Zeekr, and GAC Aion, sparking immediate outrage on social media.

However, within 24 hours, all eight companies issued statements denying the allegations. XPeng's legal department clarified, "We have not received any regulatory summons or been subject to investigation recently," and stated they were gathering evidence to hold the rumor-mongers accountable. BYD's "News Fact-Checking Office" dismissed the claims as "completely false." Tesla responded, "The information is untrue; all software updates undergo rigorous testing and regulatory filing." Zeekr explicitly stated, "We have not received any summons," and secured evidence to defend its rights.

That evening, Liu Yan, Deputy Secretary-General of the China Association of Automobile Manufacturers (CAAM), refuted the rumors: "We verified with the relevant authorities and enterprises. To our knowledge, no regulatory summons or investigations have been conducted regarding these claims. The online content lacks official sources and is factually inaccurate."

The original source, CCTV.com, later issued a correction, revising its earlier statement from "eight automakers summoned" to "based on incomplete statistics from our website, since 2020, eight automakers have been summoned for talks over issues like abnormal acceleration, battery fires, and OTA updates."

While the confusion was resolved, the rumors were not entirely baseless. Since 2026, complaints about battery locking have surged.

What is OTA Battery Locking?

Battery locking refers to automakers using OTA (over-the-air) or offline software updates to modify battery management system (BMS) parameters without explicit consumer consent. This limits the battery's charging capacity, discharge depth, and power output.

Zhang Xiang, Secretary-General of the International Intelligent Transport Technology Association and researcher at North China University of Technology's Automotive Industry Innovation Research Center, explained that battery locking typically manifests in two ways: preventing full charging or displaying a zero battery level before complete depletion. It may also involve artificially reducing charging currents.

Technically, battery locking takes two forms: automakers adjust BMS parameters to restrict the charging and discharging window, terminating charging prematurely and deeming the battery depleted while significant capacity remains. Alternatively, they reduce charging currents to slow-charge mode, mitigating safety risks during charging.

From a safety perspective, battery locking can reduce thermal runaway and spontaneous combustion risks. In 2025, Beijing Benz recalled certain EQC models due to a BMS software defect causing thermal runaway. The recall, which involved a BMS upgrade, reduced driving range but lowered fire risks under extreme conditions. Similarly, GAC Aion implemented OTA restrictions after multiple spontaneous combustion cases of its AION S model. In 2021, Weltmeister EX5 limited charging and discharging power via OTA updates to prevent overcharging-induced thermal runaway.

However, deeper motives relate to after-sales costs. National regulations mandate free battery replacement if capacity decays by over 20% within the 8-year/120,000-km warranty. By artificially reducing usable capacity and charge-discharge cycles through battery locking, automakers slow the apparent decay rate, shifting after-sales risks to consumers.

Industry insiders note that while battery locking masks decay, it degrades driving experience. Some automakers even pre-lock high-performance modes, charging users subscription fees to unlock them, turning battery locking into a profit source.

Legal experts argue that unilateral battery locking violates consumers' right to information and choice. Evidence collection is difficult, and non-compliance costs for automakers are low, leaving consumers struggling to seek redress. Excuses like "system optimization for safety" lose credibility as driving ranges shrink.

Regulatory Responses

Faced with escalating OTA-related chaos, regulators have tightened oversight since 2025.

In February 2025, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) and the State Administration for Market Regulation jointly issued the "Notice on Strengthening Management of Intelligent Connected Vehicle Product Access, Recalls, and Software Updates," regulating OTA applications to prevent enterprises from hiding defects or evading responsibilities.

In 2026, regulatory efforts intensified. The recommended national standard "Technical Requirements and Test Methods for the Safety of Online Upgrades in Vehicle Networking" (GB/T 47325-2026) was released in March, with implementation set for October 1, 2026. It provides detailed safety and testing guidelines for OTA updates.

The regulatory framework for intelligent vehicle OTA updates now spans pre-market access to full lifecycle traceability. Liu Yan urged automakers to maintain transparency, safeguard consumer rights, establish efficient after-sales channels, and address battery-locking complaints proactively.

Why Did the Rumor Spread So Fast?

The rapid public backlash stems from widespread battery-locking complaints. While OTA updates should enhance vehicle performance, some automakers' abuse of remote control privileges has eroded consumer trust.

A National Business Daily investigation revealed the rumor's dissemination path: self-media published false claims, which search engines and generative AI amplified, piecing together the "list of eight companies." AI's "completion instinct" transformed fragmented lies into seemingly credible "facts." Several automakers admitted being "bewildered" by the list.

This highlights AI's role in information ecosystems. AI lacks malice but cannot verify or take responsibility for generated content. Its logic is to provide the most probable answer, often amplifying falsehoods in the absence of official information. Blaming AI alone is unfair.

Industry-Deep Root Causes

Resolving the confusion doesn’t address the core issue: Are automakers really engaging in battery locking?

The problem lies in undefined OTA authority boundaries. Consumers purchase hardware ownership, not software leasing rights. Vehicle ownership includes range—a core asset value. Reducing range from 510 km to 300 km devalues assets and degrades driving experience. When automakers unilaterally modify core performance parameters via software updates, property rights and technical control rights clash in the OTA era.

A deeper issue is the opacity of battery-locking information. OTA update records and control rights are sealed in automakers' private clouds, leaving owners unable to independently verify parameter changes. Legal experts propose a national OTA regulatory platform to trace, monitor, and warn upgrade behaviors in real time, eliminating hidden non-compliance.

For an industry advancing toward high-level intelligence and autonomous driving, OTA is foundational. If trust in this foundation breaks, the promise of "continuous improvement" becomes mere rhetoric. Technological rationality requires institutional ethics—making updates transparent and OTA packages traceable is essential for consumer rights and industry sustainability.

The "AI-generated farce" underscores a real issue: while regulatory frameworks exist, rebuilding consumer trust has just begun.

- End -

Disclaimer:

Articles marked "Source: XXX (non-Zhiche Technology)" are reprinted from other media to share information. This does not imply endorsement of their views or responsibility for their authenticity. Copyright belongs to the original authors. For infringements, please contact us for removal.