Controversies over OTA upgrades and battery management and control
In recent years, it has become a common practice in the industry for new energy vehicles to achieve function optimization and system iteration through OTA remote upgrades, bringing users a continuously improving vehicle - using experience. However, at the same time, a large number of car owners have reported that after the upgrade, their vehicles experience phenomena such as reduced battery range, slower charging, and decreased power. The number of related complaints has remained high. In March 2026 alone, the national 12315 platform received more than 12,000 complaints related to battery capacity limitations, and the cumulative number of relevant cases on various automobile complaint platforms has exceeded 45,000.
In the face of the concentrated user feedback, many car companies have successively issued statements denying that they have carried out "battery locking" operations on vehicles through OTA, stating that all relevant adjustments are for battery safety protection and lifespan optimization. On one hand, there are the real and perceptible changes in vehicle - using experiences reported by a large number of users; on the other hand, there are the clear official responses from the enterprises. The controversy has continued to intensify, leaving many consumers confused and uneasy.
01
This controversy is not simply a confrontation between "believing the car owners or believing the car companies", but touches on a key proposition in the development of the new energy vehicle industry:
When enterprises conduct battery safety management and system upgrades, how can they find a balance between technical rationality, user's right to know, and user experience? When technical adjustments turn into what users call "stealthy downgrading" and official explanations fail to dispel users' doubts, the industry needs to face the controversy, respond to concerns, and improve the mechanism with a more gentle, transparent, and responsible attitude.
To view this controversy rationally, we first need to clearly understand the technical logic of battery management. The so - called "reduced battery range" perceived by users partly comes from the strategy adjustment of the Battery Management System (BMS). To protect the battery, reduce the aging risk caused by over - charging and over - discharging, and lower the probability of thermal runaway, car companies usually set a certain safety redundancy for the battery, that is, reserve a part of the unavailable capacity beyond the nominal capacity.
Under normal circumstances, this part of the redundancy is an important design for safety. However, when the vehicle experiences problems such as poor cell consistency, rapid attenuation, and abnormal temperature, some enterprises will further narrow the available capacity range through OTA upgrades, raise the discharge lower limit and lower the charging upper limit, so that the battery always operates in a more conservative range, thereby reducing the risk of failure. From a technical perspective, the original intention of such operations is often for safety and durability. However, since users are not fully informed, it directly brings about intuitive changes such as shorter battery range, slower charging, and weaker power, making users feel "downgraded" and "infringed".
The feedback from a large number of car owners is very similar: the new car has a nominal battery range of about 500 kilometers. After a silent upgrade at night, the actual battery range is significantly reduced; the amount of electricity that can be charged during charging is significantly reduced, and the fast - charging time is significantly prolonged; the vehicle's power output is restricted, and the acceleration feeling is significantly weakened. These changes are not individual phenomena but the real experiences shared by a large number of users. Therefore, it is difficult to simply explain them with reasons such as "individual perception differences" or "the influence of low winter temperatures".
What is even more unacceptable to users is that such adjustments are often hidden in the regular OTA upgrade packages and are pushed together with functions such as voice optimization, navigation update, and interface adjustment. It is difficult for users to identify the changes in the battery strategy from the lengthy update instructions. Some users are defaulted to upgrade the system during maintenance. Afterward, when they find that the battery range has been reduced and consult the service shop, they are mostly told that it is a "normal optimization" and cannot get a clear and honest explanation, which further intensifies the sense of distrust.
02
In fact, OTA adjustments related to the battery should not be equated with "malicious downgrading".
In the development process of the industry, there have indeed been cases where software strategy adjustments were made to reduce risks due to battery safety hazards. In the early days, some brands had multiple safety accidents with their vehicles and found it difficult to bear the cost of large - scale recalls. Eventually, they chose to tighten the battery usage range through OTA to avoid the expansion of accidents. Although this approach reduced the safety risk in the short term, it seriously damaged the user experience and brand reputation and became a profound lesson for the industry.
With the improvement of battery manufacturing level, the strengthening of supply - chain management, and the raising of quality control standards, the situation of being forced to "lock the battery" due to serious quality defects has gradually decreased. However, under the pressure of high - range, high - speed charging, and high - cycle requirements, problems such as uneven cell attenuation, excessive local temperature difference, and decreased long - term consistency still exist. To pass the warranty assessment and reduce the after - sales compensation pressure, some enterprises still tend to adopt a conservative BMS strategy and even shrink the available capacity through hidden OTA to delay the apparent attenuation speed.
Behind this is essentially a practical economic account. According to the national mandatory requirements, the power batteries of new energy vehicles must provide an 8 - year or 120,000 - kilometer warranty, and if the capacity attenuation exceeds 20%, the battery must be replaced for free. The cost of power batteries is very high, and replacing a set of batteries often costs tens of thousands of yuan, which is a huge expenditure pressure for enterprises.
Therefore, controlling the available capacity through software strategies to prevent the battery from triggering the replacement standard within the warranty period has become an option for some enterprises to control costs. However, this approach transfers the technical and cost pressures to users, making users bear the losses of reduced battery range, decreased experience, and lower residual value, which obviously violates the basic logic of fair consumption.
For users, the impact of hidden battery adjustments is multi - faceted. Firstly, there is a direct gap caused by the inflated battery range. Users pay for the nominal battery range when buying a car, but the actual available mileage is significantly reduced. Secondly, the convenience of vehicle use decreases. The charging time becomes longer, the battery range becomes shorter, and long - distance travel causes more anxiety. Thirdly, the vehicle's resale value is damaged. Models with limited battery range and performance are significantly undervalued in the second - hand market. More alarmingly, relying on software restrictions to cover up potential battery problems does not really eliminate safety hazards but only reduces the apparent risk, still posing a threat to long - term vehicle safety.
03
Facing the increasingly concentrated complaints and strong market doubts, the regulatory authorities took timely action and clearly defined the bottom line.
In March 2026, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology and the State Administration for Market Regulation jointly issued a notice regulating OTA behavior, clearly requiring that silent forced upgrades, battery locking and downgrading, and covering up defects through OTA to avoid recalls are strictly prohibited. All upgrades related to safety, such as the three - electric system, braking, and steering, must be fully filed and made public and transparent.
The policy signal is very clear: OTA is a technological dividend, not a tool for enterprises to make hidden adjustments and transfer risks; users have the complete right to know about changes in the core performance of the vehicle, and enterprises cannot damage users' legitimate rights and interests in the name of "safety optimization".
The tightening of policies has pointed out the direction for the industry, but truly resolving the controversy still requires enterprises to make changes in their cognition and actions. A benign OTA upgrade should make the vehicle perform better and more stably over time, rather than becoming weaker and less cost - effective. Enterprises need to understand that what users are dissatisfied with is not the battery protection itself, but the non - disclosure, non - transparency, and irresponsible handling methods.
Viewed moderately and rationally, the industry can make improvements in four aspects to resolve the battery - locking controversy.
First, all OTA adjustments related to battery capacity, charging upper limit, and power output must be separately notified and clearly explained. The reasons for the adjustment, the scope of influence, and the changes brought to vehicle use should be clearly explained to fully respect the user's right to know and right to choose, and they are not allowed to be hidden in regular updates.
Second, establish an open, queryable, and verifiable battery health monitoring mechanism so that users can check data such as battery capacity, attenuation status, cell consistency, and available range at any time, reducing information asymmetry and avoiding speculation and doubts caused by non - transparency.
Third, for vehicles that really need strategy adjustment due to the battery consistency problem of early batches, provide a reasonable compensation plan, such as extending the warranty, giving charging rights, and providing maintenance discounts, to make up for the loss of user experience with a sincere attitude instead of simply denying and avoiding the problem.
Fourth, improve the battery quality and manufacturing consistency from the source. Through stricter supply - chain management, more rigorous factory inspections, and more reliable thermal management designs, reduce the need for passive adjustments in the later stage, so that users do not have to make a difficult choice between "safety" and "battery range".
In the long run, the value of OTA technology lies in enabling cars to be constantly updated and continuously evolve. It can optimize energy consumption, improve intelligent driving ability, perfect the cockpit experience, and enhance safety performance, but it should never become a hidden means to cover up product defects, transfer costs, and cut users' rights and interests. When OTA loses users' trust, even the most advanced technology will become the source of controversy.
For users, there is no need to panic excessively. The battery protection strategies of regular brands are mostly based on safety as the basic starting point and are not deliberately designed to damage users' interests. Rationally understanding the working principle of the battery, regularly checking the battery health status, choosing a regular channel for upgrades, and keeping relevant data records can better safeguard their own rights and interests.
For the entire industry, this ongoing controversy is an important reminder: the competition in the new energy vehicle industry is no longer just a superficial comparison of battery range, fast - charging, and intelligence, but a deep - seated competition of trust, reputation, responsibility, and long - termism. A truly trustworthy enterprise will not reduce costs through hidden adjustments, avoid responsibilities through information asymmetry, and will never sacrifice user experience for short - term interests.
Technology can be continuously iterated, and the market can change constantly, but users' expectations for transparency, sincerity, and fairness will never change. When enterprises are willing to communicate sincerely, take responsibility, and give priority to users' rights and interests, the so - called "battery - locking" controversy will gradually be resolved.
We hope that the industry can take this controversy as an opportunity to move towards a more transparent, standardized, and healthy development path. Let OTA truly become a benefit for users, let battery management truly serve safety and long - term experience, and let every car owner buy with confidence, use with peace of mind, and have more confidence in long - term ownership.
This article is from the WeChat official account "New Energy Prospect" (ID: xinnengyuanqianzhan), author: New Energy Observer. It is published by 36Kr with authorization.