Group 1 - The article discusses a consumer deception involving a "large digital educational 3D movie" in Guangzhou, where parents reported feeling misled after purchasing tickets for low-quality films that did not meet educational claims [1][9][11] - Parents received movie vouchers that were mistakenly believed to be school assignments, leading them to buy tickets for a series of short films instead of full-length features [2][10][12] - The local education bureau warned that organizations were falsely using its name to distribute these movie vouchers, indicating potential fraudulent activity [1][12][13] Group 2 - The movie event was held in a rented cinema, and the cinema staff clarified that they were not responsible for the content or ticket sales, which were managed by a third party [11][12] - Legal experts indicated that the promotional tactics used by the organizers could constitute commercial fraud and violate consumer protection laws, allowing consumers to seek refunds [17][18] - The event's promotional materials claimed affiliation with government educational initiatives, which were found to be unverified and misleading [13][17]

Group 1 - Xiaomi Group's public relations manager Wang Hua stated that the recent trending topic regarding Lei Jun's Weibo comment settings is exaggerated, as the restriction has been in place for a long time to prevent spam accounts [1] - The company is currently facing a public relations crisis following a serious accident involving its SU7 model, which resulted in three fatalities, leading to a significant media backlash [1] - Following the accident, Lei Jun has limited his public appearances and social media interactions, only making a brief statement on Xiaomi's 15th anniversary [1] Group 2 - The high-end model Xiaomi SU7 Ultra is embroiled in controversy over false advertising claims, with numerous prospective buyers expressing dissatisfaction and seeking refunds [1] - Xiaomi issued an apology and proposed a compensation plan on May 7, but many consumers rejected the offer and have formed a group for collective action, with over 400 members [1] - On May 10, Lei Jun described the past month as one of the most challenging periods since founding Xiaomi, indicating a low emotional state and reduced public engagement [2]

Core Viewpoint - Xiaomi's automotive division is facing significant backlash from customers regarding the SU7 Ultra model, particularly concerning the advertised features of the carbon fiber hood, which are claimed to be misleading and not meeting customer expectations [1][6][13]. Group 1: Customer Reactions - Customers are demanding refunds for their deposits due to discrepancies between the advertised features and the actual product performance, particularly regarding the carbon fiber hood's functionality [1][4][11]. - A group of approximately 414 customers has formed to discuss their grievances and seek refunds, indicating a growing dissatisfaction among early adopters [4][6]. - The response from Xiaomi, which includes offering points instead of refunds, has been perceived as inadequate and disrespectful by customers [7][9]. Group 2: Company Response - Xiaomi's proposed solutions include a limited-time option to switch back to an aluminum hood for unfulfilled orders and offering 20,000 points to those who have already taken delivery [6][9]. - The company has not provided a clear resolution regarding the refund requests, leading to further frustration among customers [10][12]. - Xiaomi's handling of the situation has been described as dismissive, with customers feeling that their concerns are not being taken seriously [7][9]. Group 3: Legal Implications - Legal experts suggest that Xiaomi may be liable for false advertising if the discrepancies between the advertised and actual product features are proven [13][15]. - Customers may have grounds to demand refunds based on the argument that the misleading information influenced their purchasing decisions [12][16]. - The potential for legal action exists, as customers could argue that the failure to deliver on advertised features constitutes a breach of contract [10][16].

本文来自微信公众号：花儿街参考，作者：林默，题图来自：AI生成 如果你去一家饭店吃饭，点了菜单上一瓶看着很像的茅台酒。酒上来了，闻着挺好，喝着喝着你发现味儿不太对，然后说这酒不是茅台吧。 店家看瞒不住了，说，"确实只是复刻了茅台的香气，但是内容不是茅台"。你说"那不行啊，我要退酒"。 店家说，酒是不可能退的，这么着，我给你炒2000粒我自己种的花生米，送你个菜还不行吗？ 于是，多花了4万2的车主中，有人想沿着这个并不贯通的风道，把车贯通回去，退给小米。 一 在小米SU7 Ultra碳纤维前舱盖事件中，小米罕见地浅浅认了个怂。 毕竟，事实太过分明——三个月前，小米汽车的官方微信里，白底黑字地这样介绍挖孔机盖，"碳纤维双风道前舱盖完全复刻小米SU7 Ultra原型车，采用 了相同的空气动力学设计，2个贯穿风道，实现前部空气高效导流"。 虽然雷军删掉了关于挖孔机盖轮毂散热的微博，也终归他是发过的。 最重要的是，这个宣传的成果是以交易的形式确定下来的。如果一位SU7 Ultra车主选择拥有这样炫目的两个孔，那么他跟小米达成的合同条款，就要实 实在在多花4万2千元。 然而，两个贯通风道的车还没到，另一种真相却贯通到了— ...

小米汽车近来可谓风波不断。继3月29日安徽铜陵高速爆燃事故后，小米汽车近日再度陷入一场由 数百名小米SU7 Ultra车主发起的退车风波之中。 5月7日，小米汽车就近期小米SU7 Ultra车型引发的两项争议——"排位模式"解锁条件变更，以及碳 纤维双风道前舱盖功能表述不清问题，发布官方回应并两次致歉。 最新消息显示，目前已有部分车主得到小米汽车客服反馈，称可以协调退车，但无法退还2万元定 金。 SU7 Ultra"货不对版" 数百位车主组群退车 今年2月27日，小米汽车正式推出SU7 Ultra车型。其中，价格为4.2万元的"碳纤维双风道前舱盖"选 装件，"完全复刻小米SU7 Ultra原型车"，且"拥有两个贯穿风道，能实现前部空气高效导流"，可为整车 减重、辅助散热，并提升下压力，由此实现整车性能的提高，这也成为该车的一大卖点。 然而，新车上市后，有博主用鼓风机对前舱盖"挖孔"处吹风，包括有提车车主自行拆解，均未发现 官方宣传的"贯穿风道"。由于SU7 Ultra前舱盖的"货不对版"，小米汽车也被质疑存在"虚假宣传"。 申请退车不退定金 律师：没有法律依据 5月12日，有欲退车车主透露，已收到小米汽车客服 ...

出品 | 搜狐财经 作者 | 王泽红 "从今天（5月12日）开始，我跟大家说不再拉人进来了。现在群里有392个人，全部验证过，都是（小米SU7 Ultra）车主，基本 都是想要退2万的定金。" "还有人陆续想加群，但我有点不敢再加人了，害怕有一些其他变数。其他群友想要拉人，我跟他们说，如果有新消息你们可以 转达一下。" "害怕各种各样的截图发出去。"姜文向搜狐财经坦言道，他是小米SU7 Ultra的一位准车主，也是挖孔版车退订群的创建者。 近期，小米因SU7 Ultra碳纤维挖孔机盖版车型再次陷入舆论风波，多名准车主认为，其高价选装的碳纤维双风道前舱盖，存在 虚假宣传问题或者官方表达有误，引发众多车主不满。 这也导致部分车主产生退车情绪，5月12日下午，有欲退车车主告诉搜狐财经，已收到小米客服反馈。 姜文供图 欲退订车主：本是想炫耀，现在太反差了 有车主表示，价值4.2万元的碳纤维机盖，宣传时的赛车级碳纤维、双风道空气动力学设计、能辅助散热还能提升下压力、减 重、提高整车性能……结果车刚提回来被泼了一盆冷水。 有博主用鼓风机对着小米SU7 Ultra的"挖孔"前盖猛吹，但放在开孔上的纸巾纹丝不动。此外，有车主 ...

Core Insights - In the first quarter of 2025, a total of 461,767 consumer complaints were received nationwide, marking a year-on-year increase of 33.33% [1] - The complaints led to the resolution of 261,218 cases, recovering economic losses amounting to 23.723 million yuan for consumers [1] - The nature of complaints showed that contract issues accounted for 26.56%, after-sales service issues for 26.07%, and quality issues for 19.67% [1] Complaint Categories - Compared to the first quarter of 2024, the proportion of complaints regarding false advertising, counterfeiting, and safety issues increased, while complaints related to quality and contract issues decreased [2] - Product-related complaints totaled 245,964, representing 53.27% of all complaints, an increase of 6.38 percentage points from the previous year [2] - Service-related complaints amounted to 190,382, accounting for 41.23% of total complaints, a decrease of 5.00 percentage points [2] Specific Product Complaints - The top five categories for product complaints were home electronics, clothing and footwear, daily goods, food, and transportation tools [2] - Compared to the first quarter of 2024, complaints regarding clothing and daily goods increased, while complaints about agricultural production materials decreased [2] Specific Service Complaints - The leading categories for service complaints included internet services, life and social services, education and training services, sales services, and cultural, entertainment, and sports services [3] - There was an increase in complaints related to financial services, cultural, entertainment, and sports services, and public facility services, while complaints about life and social services, internet services, and telecommunications services decreased [2][3]

2025.05. 10 本文字数：1864，阅读时长大约3分钟 作者 | 第一财经 武子晔 近日，小米汽车高端车型SU7 Ultra因碳纤维双风道前舱盖宣传问题陷入舆论漩涡，引发众多车主不满，进行 无损退订维权。 面对碳纤维双风道前舱盖质疑，5月7日晚间，小米汽车官方致歉并给出了相应的解决方案。小米汽车方面表 示，小米SU7 Ultra的碳纤维双风道前舱盖，在满足复刻造型的需求之外，还提供了部分气流导出和辅助前舱 散热功能。"我们对此前信息表达不够清晰深表歉意，我们将采取以下措施：对于未交付的订单，我们将提供 限时改配服务，可以改回铝制前舱盖；对于已提车和在本次限时改配结束前选配碳纤维双风道前舱盖（截至5 月10日23:59:59前）的锁单用户，将赠送2万积分以表诚意。" 根据此前小米汽车官方宣传，碳纤维双风道前舱盖完全复刻原型车，而小米汽车在5月7日声明中称，"在满足 复刻造型的需求之外，还提供了部分气流导出和辅助前舱散热功能"。 "花高价买到的只是一个装饰性的机盖，而非起初宣传的功能，这让我们觉得很不舒服。"刘衡对记者表示，他 与数十名准车主联合录制了要求无损退车的维权视频，这一联合声明发布在了社交平台上 ...

Core Viewpoint - Xiaomi's high-end model SU7 Ultra is facing backlash from over 300 prospective owners due to alleged false advertising regarding the carbon fiber dual air duct hood, leading to demands for a no-penalty return policy [1][4]. Group 1: Customer Complaints - Many SU7 Ultra prospective owners believe that the advertised features of the carbon fiber dual air duct hood do not match the actual product, which they claim is merely decorative [2][4]. - A group of SU7 Ultra prospective owners has formed a rights protection group to advocate for a no-penalty return policy, expressing dissatisfaction with Xiaomi's compensation plan [1][5]. Group 2: Xiaomi's Response - On May 7, Xiaomi publicly apologized and offered a compensation plan, which includes a limited-time option to switch back to an aluminum hood for undelivered orders and a points system for those who have already received their vehicles [3][5]. - Xiaomi's initial marketing claimed that the carbon fiber hood was a functional upgrade, but the company later stated that it only partially provides airflow and cooling benefits, which has led to confusion among consumers [3][4]. Group 3: Product Details and Market Performance - The SU7 Ultra was officially launched on February 27, priced at 529,000 yuan, and aims to be the "fastest" four-door production car, with over 10,000 pre-orders already received [6]. - The vehicle features Xiaomi's advanced electric motor system and is designed for high-performance use, including track capabilities [6].

近日，小米汽车就两个问题两度致歉，话题瞬间冲上热搜榜首。然而，这不过是小米所面临舆论风暴的冰山一角。 一个多月时间里，小米汽车接连出了四个大事。这四次重击犹如四根钢钉，将小米汽车钉在舆论的十字架上。 曾经意气风发的雷军和如日中天的小米，如今正站在悬崖边缘，脚下是深不见底的信任黑洞。 5月7日深夜，小米汽车官方发布一个声明，就近期小米SU7 Ultra车型引发的两项争议，两次"深表歉意"。 第一个争议，"排位模式"解锁。 小米SU7 Ultra近日更新了车机版本，对车辆的动力输出进行了限制，1548匹最大马力被锁定，车主需要达成赛道成绩才能解锁，否则只能使用大约900匹 马力。 不少小米车主认为，自己购买该车就是冲着高马力去的，现在性能被限制，这是不尊重车主的表现，而且还侵犯了车主的权利。 第二个争议，小米SU7 Ultra 碳纤维挖孔机盖。 有博主通过实验，用鼓风机对着小米SU7 Ultra的"挖孔"前机盖猛吹，结果发现纸巾纹丝不动。 更有车主亲自拆解前机盖，发现所谓的"双风道高效导流"碳纤维开孔，既无法有效引导空气至刹车系统或产生下压力，日常使用中散热效果也不明显。 这样的结果引发巨大风波，让很多"挖孔"版 ...