The Meilan District People's Court in Haikou has rendered a first-instance judgment in China's inaugural case concerning Xiaomi Auto's practice of "requiring full payment before vehicle delivery." The court declared the standardized clause in Xiaomi's affiliated company's Purchase Agreement—specifically, "full payment must be made within 7 days without vehicle inspection; otherwise, the deposit will be forfeited"—to be null and void. The court mandated Haikou Xiaomi Jingming Technology Co., Ltd. to refund double the vehicle purchase deposit of 10,000 yuan to consumer Ms. Li, with Xiaomi Jingming Technology Co., Ltd. sharing joint liability. This ruling sets a judicial precedent for safeguarding consumer rights and contributes to the standardization of transaction rules in the "pre-order, post-production" model prevalent in the new energy vehicle sector. The controversy surrounding Xiaomi Auto's pre-sale deposits is not unique, shedding light on fundamental challenges within the automotive industry's pre-sale framework, including data inflation and uneven contract fulfillment. After a test drive, Ms. Li paid a deposit and subsequently negotiated to delay vehicle collection. Nevertheless, Xiaomi's Haikou branch insisted on full payment, canceled the order, and retained the deposit. The court determined that the disputed standardized clause was unenforceable and that Xiaomi's Haikou branch breached the principles of good faith and supplementary agreements. The special conditions cited by Xiaomi Auto staff regarding early payment collection did not pertain to Ms. Li's situation. Since November 2025, there has been a spike in complaints regarding Xiaomi Auto's "sequence of payment and delivery obligations," with ambiguous language in its full payment clauses. Furthermore, Xiaomi Auto is under public scrutiny amid allegations of false advertising. Industry experts emphasize that automotive sales should uphold fairness, with manufacturers needing to harmonize scale expansion with contract fulfillment capabilities.