Reports of 8 EV Makers Summoned Over 'Battery Locking' False, But OTA Battery Throttling Is Real

Recently, online rumors claimed that "eight new energy vehicle (NEV) manufacturers were collectively summoned for remotely implementing 'battery locking' via OTA updates, with three under formal investigation and two having withdrawn their update packages and pledged to restore vehicle performance," sparking widespread public concern. The alleged list reportedly included mainstream brands such as BYD, Tesla, NIO, XPeng, Li Auto, Aito, Zeekr, and GAC Aion. On the same day, all the mentioned automakers issued statements denying they had been summoned. The China Association of Automobile Manufacturers (CAAM) subsequently clarified that relevant regulatory authorities had not conducted any summonses, investigations, or enforcement actions regarding the matter cited in online reports. CAAM emphasized that the circulating claims lacked any official source and significantly deviated from the facts. Further verification revealed that the misinformation originated from a CCTV.com article published on April 17 about the "battery locking" issue in NEVs. The original report stated, "According to incomplete statistics, since 2020, eight automakers have been summoned over issues including unintended acceleration, battery fires, and OTA-related problems," but it did not name specific companies nor indicate that these summonses were recent or specifically related to "battery locking." Over two weeks later, a user asked an AI model a question, prompting the AI to generate a fabricated list naming specific automakers. This AI-generated screenshot spread widely on social media, eventually escalating into a large-scale misunderstanding. CCTV.com later posted a correction in the comments section of its original article to clarify its intended meaning. Although this "collective summons" turned out to be a false alarm, the practice of OTA-based "battery locking" does exist within the industry. "Battery locking" refers to automakers remotely adjusting battery management system parameters through software updates—without users’ knowledge—to restrict usable battery capacity, charging/discharging power, and power output, thereby reducing driving range, slowing charging speeds, and degrading overall vehicle performance. Precedents already exist. In 2021, WM Motor recalled its EX5 model following multiple spontaneous combustion incidents but implemented "battery locking" as a remedy, drastically reducing owners’ driving range. This triggered collective consumer protests and drew public criticism from the China Consumers Association. WM Motor’s sales subsequently declined continuously, ultimately leading the company into severe operational difficulties. Automakers primarily resort to battery locking to control battery warranty costs and mitigate safety risks. Under Chinese regulations, if an NEV’s battery capacity degrades by more than 20% within eight years or 120,000 kilometers, the manufacturer must replace it free of charge. Some automakers offer even longer warranty commitments; fulfilling these at scale would impose substantial financial burdens. By restricting battery operation to a 20%–80% state of charge (SOC) range through locking, aging can be slowed, helping avoid triggering warranty obligations. Additionally, for early models with thermal management deficiencies, battery locking can reduce the risk of thermal runaway. Nevertheless, even when motivated by safety concerns, implementing battery locking without users’ informed consent likely infringes upon consumer rights. In March 2026, China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) and the State Administration for Market Regulation jointly established four regulatory red lines: prohibiting silent forced updates, banning battery locking that downgrades vehicle specifications, forbidding the use of OTA updates to conceal defects and evade recalls, and mandating full registration of all OTA updates. Unauthorized battery locking will thus constitute a legal violation going forward. Although this misinformation has now been clarified, it underscores consumers’ widespread anxiety about remote manipulation of their vehicles’ performance.