XPeng announced on Tuesday that it has won two first-instance defamation lawsuits against automotive content creators, marking the latest case in China’s growing crackdown on online misinformation targeting the auto industry.
The automaker’s Legal Department stated on Weibo that it had proceeded with “legal proceedings against the operators of the relevant accounts in accordance with the law.”
XPeng acted after “false statements, insults, defamation, and other misleading content” were published by several self-media accounts.
In March, the Guangzhou Internet Court issued first-instance judgments against Liu Hongbin and Zhang Liang for infringing XPeng‘s reputation rights.
The court ordered Liu Hongbin to publish public apologies through his Toutiao, Sohu and NetEase accounts operating under the name “I Am Benbo’erba,” while Zhang Liang was ordered to apologize through his Baijiahao account “Longche Auto.”
Both defendants were also ordered to compensate XPeng for its losses.
XPeng reiterated that “the internet is not beyond the reach of the law” and said it would “continue to protect our legitimate rights and interests through legal means,” while thanking consumers and media outlets for their continued support.
Ruling
Beyond announcing the verdicts, XPeng also published excerpts from the court’s reasoning, providing insight into how Chinese courts are distinguishing between protected criticism and unlawful defamation.
The judgment begins by reaffirming that “citizens enjoy freedom of speech,” before explaining that speech falls into two categories: statements of fact and expressions of opinion.
According to the court, “a statement of fact is a description of an event that has occurred or is occurring,” and “such statements must be truthful or have been reasonably verified.”
The judges added that when factual statements are “inconsistent with objective facts” and are capable of damaging another party’s social reputation, they may constitute defamatory conduct.
The ruling separately addresses opinions, noting that “an expression of opinion is a subjective value judgment” that may include approval or criticism and that, because individuals differ in knowledge, emotions and values, such judgments “do not have an absolute distinction between ‘true’ and ‘false.'”
However, the court emphasized that opinions are not without limits, stating that “expressions of opinion must remain within the bounds of reasonable comment and may not insult or disparage others.”
Brake-Related Misinformation
Applying those principles to the case, the court found that the disputed publications mixed opinions with unsupported factual allegations.
Specifically, it identified statements claiming that XPeng “can’t even get the brakes right,” that it “uses hardware specifications to substitute for autonomous driving levels,” and that it “induces users to take their hands off the wheel while driving.”
According to the judgment, these assertions had “no factual basis,” “introduced misunderstanding,” and therefore “constituted defamation.”
The court also pointed to language used throughout the articles that described XPeng as engaging in “shameless conduct,” referred to the company as an “opportunistic clown,” accused it of “using users’ lives as marketing collateral,” and labelled it “a cancer of the industry” and “a paradise for fraud.”
The judges concluded that these expressions carried “an obvious derogatory meaning,” “exceeded the scope of reasonable opinion,” and therefore constituted insulting language.
Summarizing its findings, the court stated that the publications “constituted insults and defamation against XPeng,” that they had been disseminated online and viewed by third parties, and that they “objectively lowered XPeng‘s social reputation,” thereby infringing its right to reputation.
Content Creator Responsibilities
The judgment concerning Zhang Liang also addressed the responsibilities of professional content creators.
Unlike ordinary platform users, the court wrote, “as a professional automotive content creator, the defendant should carefully verify the sources of the data involved in the published content and present it objectively.”
It found that “some of the content published by the defendant lacked supporting evidence,” that the defendant was “subjectively at fault,” and that the publications negatively affected XPeng‘s social reputation.
In addition to financial compensation, both judgments require the defendants to publish court-approved apology statements.
According to the published rulings, the apologies must remain prominently displayed for at least 15 consecutive days and cannot be removed or hidden behind viewing restrictions.
Crackdown on Online Misinformation
XPeng‘s announcement comes amid a broader effort by Chinese automakers to pursue legal action against online rumor campaigns targeting the country’s increasingly competitive EV sector.
Last month, Nio disclosed that it had reported multiple online rumor campaigns to police after collecting evidence of what it described as “false and defamatory information” spread across social media platforms.
The company said law enforcement authorities had formally accepted the case for investigation.
According to Nio, the campaigns included fabricated claims involving actors appearing in Onvo promotional videos, false reports concerning vehicle sales, and invented allegations regarding battery swap station failures.
The automaker said the content had been deliberately created and disseminated to mislead the public and damage the company’s reputation.
In its statement, Nio said it would “continue to pursue legal accountability for individuals and organizations that fabricate or spread rumors,” while urging internet users “not to create rumors, not to believe rumors, and not to spread rumors.”
The XPeng rulings and Nio‘s recent announcement reflect an increasingly visible trend across China’s automotive industry, where manufacturers are making public both the legal proceedings and the underlying court decisions as they seek to combat online misinformation through civil litigation and, in some cases, criminal investigations.
