Chinese carmakers declare war on internet trolls, with penalties extending to prison

GWM uncovers an attack targeting the new Wey Lanshan

Great Wall Motor's legal department identified suspicious social media activity during the unveiling of the second-generation Wey Lanshan.

According to GWM, dozens of accounts posted almost identical negative comments at short intervals during the night. Some messages appeared in the very same second and used identical wording.

The company regards this behaviour as a sign of an organised smear campaign and says it will hold the organisers legally accountable. So far, no evidence has been presented publicly to establish that any rival carmaker was involved in the alleged attack.

The timing of the dispute is no coincidence. Wey opened pre-sales for the new Lanshan on 9 November. Prices for the luxury plug-in hybrid, available with five or six seats, start at approximately €35,000 in China.

The model's technical strengths include an 800-volt electrical architecture, 6C fast charging, four-wheel steering and advanced driver assistance systems.

GWM needs a new sales hit. Wey's October sales fell 31.9% year on year, marking a fifth consecutive month of decline. Negative attention surrounding the new model's launch makes the company's situation even more difficult.

Xiaomi critic sentenced to 20 months in prison

The most notable example involves Xiaomi.

In August 2024, Chinese automotive blogger Gao published a video comparing the crash safety of the Xiaomi SU7 and Zeekr 007. The video gave the impression that the Xiaomi electric car's doors would not open after a collision and that its emergency call system did not work.

The video attracted around three million views and prompted widespread debate about Xiaomi's safety.

However, court proceedings established that the video's creators had tampered with the car's electrical system before the test and used misleading material about battery damage.

In July 2026, a Beijing court sentenced Gao to 20 months in prison and imposed a fine of 100,000 yuan, or approximately €12,000.

Xiaomi secured another court victory in February. The court ordered the operator of automotive media outlet AutoReport to pay the company five million yuan, or approximately €610,000, remove the misleading content and issue a public apology.

This was a first-instance ruling, and it has not been confirmed whether it has become final.

BYD sues 37 content creators

BYD's approach is even more systematic.

In June 2025, the company announced legal proceedings against 37 social media accounts and placed a further 126 accounts under closer monitoring.

BYD also offers financial rewards to people who help identify those involved in the organised spread of misinformation. Rewards range from approximately €6,000 to more than €600,000.

In one case, investigators established that a content creator had used videos of other vehicles on fire to give the impression that BYD cars were spontaneously catching fire.

The court ordered the offender to remove the videos, apologise publicly and pay compensation.

Xpeng also won a court case against a content creator who spread unverified claims about water damage to batteries and refusals to provide warranty service. Compensation amounted to 100,000 yuan, or approximately €12,000.

In a separate case, Chinese police imposed ten days of administrative detention on a person who distributed a misleading AI-generated video about Xpeng.

Great Wall has fought internet trolls before

GWM's current threat is not the company's first attempt to defend its reputation in court.

In an earlier dispute, a court ordered a content creator who had disparaged Great Wall to remove the offending material, apologise publicly and pay 200,000 yuan, or approximately €24,000, in compensation.

In August 2026, the company announced another case in which four content agencies had used more than 30 accounts to distribute over 160 misleading videos.

GWM contacted the police, who identified the people involved in the campaign and took legal action against them.

This gives the current Wey Lanshan case a more serious backdrop. GWM has previously helped identify those responsible for the organised spread of misinformation and hold them accountable.

Do lawsuits protect consumers or silence criticism?

The situation in China's car industry raises a fundamental question. As a carmaker's competitive advantage depends increasingly on its social media reputation, public opinion becomes a valuable commercial resource. Fake accounts, manipulated videos and AI-generated material may be used to influence it. At the same time, manufacturers' increasingly aggressive legal action brings another risk: legitimate criticism may also be interpreted as reputational damage.

A carmaker must tolerate independent tests, negative reviews and customer dissatisfaction. Deliberately spreading fabricated evidence, however, is a different matter.

The distinction between the two is crucial. If legal proceedings focus on proven misinformation, they help protect both manufacturers and consumers. If companies also begin threatening legitimate critics with legal action, independent automotive journalism could suffer.

Europe's car industry must account for a new form of competition

Chinese manufacturers' expansion into Europe means that their reputation-building efforts and social media competition are increasingly reaching buyers in Europe too.

BYD, GWM, Xpeng and other companies already compete with established European car brands. A new model's success is determined not only by its specifications, price or quality, but also by the image shaped by online reviews and social media.

European legal frameworks also protect companies through rules on defamation and unfair competition, while freedom of expression protects public criticism.

China's experience shows that competition in the car industry has moved beyond factories and showrooms into courtrooms. The Xiaomi case demonstrated that a manipulated car test can result in imprisonment. BYD and Xpeng have secured financial compensation, and GWM intends to continue along the same path.

In the Wey Lanshan case, however, it remains to be proven who organised the alleged smear campaign. For now, this is an allegation made by the manufacturer, not a violation established in court.