Chinese authorities have cracked down on a case involving the use of artificial intelligence "rewriting" technology to fabricate and disseminate false information. The suspect controlled over 4,000 self-media accounts and continuously published negative and false content targeting the business operations of companies such as NIO, amassing a total of 80 million views to generate traffic and illicit profits. The suspect has now been placed under criminal compulsory measures in accordance with the law. NIO stated it will closely monitor the case’s progress and file civil lawsuits against the responsible parties to seek compensation for economic losses. Additionally, courts have already issued rulings in several other online infringement cases targeting NIO: - Qiu Canhui, Wang Fang, and others, operators of the “Baoli New Energy” account, managed a network of coordinated accounts to mass-publish defamatory content about NIO on platforms including Douyin, Kuaishou, WeChat Channels, and Xiaohongshu. The court of first instance found them liable for infringement and ordered them to compensate for damages and issue a public apology. - An Jianchao, operator of the “Stock Market Musings” account, repeatedly posted unverified rumors defaming NIO without verifying their accuracy. The related posts were reposted over one million times. The court of first instance ruled that this constituted infringement and ordered him to compensate for damages and issue a public apology. - Lin Guirong, operator of the “Auto Exposure Desk” account, had long published unverified accident videos across multiple platforms, tarnishing the reputation of the new energy vehicle industry. The appellate court upheld the original ruling, ordering her to compensate for damages and issue a public apology. - Su Chuyuan, operator of the “EV Gossip” account, has since 2023 maliciously interpreted NIO’s financial reports and attacked the company’s business performance through a network of coordinated accounts across multiple platforms. The appellate court affirmed the first-instance finding of infringement and ordered him to compensate for damages and issue a public apology.