IM Motors CEO Apologizes to Tesla After False Accusations

When a Chinese automotive industry boss publicly apologizes to a competitor, it doesn’t go unnoticed. Yet, that’s exactly what happened in February 2026: Liu Tao, co-CEO of IM Motors, publicly admitted to spreading false information regarding a fatal accident involving a Tesla that occurred in 2022.

This case, which dragged on for over three years, perfectly illustrates how disinformation can quickly become a double-edged sword in the fierce commercial war between Tesla and its competitors in the Chinese market.

Between hasty accusations, rigorous judicial investigations, and legal battles, this story reveals the less glamorous backstage of an industry where every communication misstep can be costly. A look back at a case that left its mark on the Chinese automotive industry.

The Chaozhou Accident: A Tragedy That Ignites the Chinese Web

It all began in November 2022, in the city of Chaozhou, Guangdong province. A spectacular accident involving a Tesla left two dead and three injured. Surveillance videos, which quickly went viral on Chinese social media, show the vehicle violently hitting motorcycles, bicycles, and pedestrians.

The striking detail for all observers? The speed recorded at the moment of impact: 198 km/h in a dense urban area. A chilling figure that immediately raises questions.

On Chinese platforms, accusations instantly flew: “Another Tesla brake failure?” This suspicion did not come out of nowhere. Tesla had already faced several controversies in China regarding potential braking issues, fueling a climate of distrust among some consumers.

Public pressure soared. Tesla China once again found itself in the spotlight, forced to defend the reliability of its vehicles even before an official investigation was launched.

A Competitor’s Hasty Statement: When IM Motors Adds Fuel to the Fire

It was in this explosive context that Liu Tao, co-CEO of IM Motors, decided to intervene publicly. For those unfamiliar, IM Motors is a joint venture between SAIC Motor, Alibaba, and Zhangjiang Hi-Tech, positioned as a direct competitor to Tesla in the premium Chinese segment.

A few days after the accident, Liu published a post on Weibo openly suggesting a safety defect in Tesla. The thinly veiled message pointed to a possible technical failure by the American manufacturer.

But then, four hours after its publication, the post mysteriously disappeared. Too late: screenshots were already circulating widely online. To understand Liu Tao’s statement, one must consider the fierce competition in the Chinese EV market, where every manufacturer is fighting to gain market share in a price war context.

In my opinion, this hasty intervention illustrates the temptation to “kick them while they’re down”: taking advantage of a competitor’s moment of weakness to score points. A risky strategy that, as we will see, can backfire.

Official Investigation Completely Exonerates Tesla

The Conclusions of the Police and Forensic Experts

In May 2023, six months after the tragedy, the Raoping County police published their official report. The verdict was unequivocal: no technical malfunction was detected in the vehicle.

The forensic analyses were comprehensive: brakes, steering, electronic systems, everything was meticulously examined. Even more revealing, the vehicle’s telemetry data confirmed the complete absence of brake pedal action during the accident sequence.

Forensic analyses meticulously examined the Tesla braking system, demonstrating its perfect functioning at the time of the accident, thus dispelling all doubts about a possible technical failure.

An Interminable Wait for the Counter-Expertise

The vehicle owner, refusing to accept these conclusions, requested an independent counter-expertise. This was followed by several months of administrative delays typical of the Chinese judicial system.

The results of this second analysis? Strictly identical to the first. No technical anomaly detected. In my opinion, these long and tedious processes are frustrating, but absolutely necessary to establish the truth rigorously and rule out any suspicion of bias.

Tesla China Fights Back in Court and Wins

Faced with the spread of this false information, Tesla China decided not to stand idly by. The manufacturer filed a lawsuit against a media outlet for defamation, a legal strategy that is part of a broader approach against FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt).

The court ruled in favor of Tesla: the media outlet was ordered to pay 30,000 yuan (approximately 4,000 euros) and issue a public apology. This legal case is part of a broader context where Tesla must constantly defend its reputation in the Chinese market, particularly concerning Chinese-made Teslas, which still raise questions among some consumers.

What I observe is a clear change in stance: Tesla no longer lets false accusations slide as it once did. In China, the company adopts a much more offensive legal strategy than in Europe or the United States, aware that its reputation in this strategic market cannot tolerate any approximation.

Late but Symbolic Apology in February 2026

The epilogue of this case arrived in February 2026, nearly three years after the accident. Liu Tao finally published a public apology on social media, admitting to having shared unverified information at the time.

The tone of the message is sober and professional, far from the sensationalism of the initial post. But honestly, the timing raises questions: why wait so long? Legal pressure? Image calculation? Sincere regrets?

Regardless, this apology sets an important precedent in the Chinese automotive industry. It reminds us that even high-level executives must take responsibility for their public communications, especially in the age of social media where every word can be captured and archived.

For IM Motors, the affair leaves its mark. The manufacturer’s credibility is tarnished, and the Chinese Tesla community has not failed to point out the irony of the situation: the accuser ultimately apologized.

The lesson for all industry players? Scrupulously verify before communicating. In a market as competitive as electric vehicles in China, the battle is also fought on the ground of reputation, and missteps come at a high price.

This case perfectly illustrates the dangers of haste and premature judgment, even when holding executive positions. In my opinion, it highlights the crucial importance of relying on the conclusions of competent authorities before making public accusations that can have serious consequences.

Ultimately, one question remains: how does this case influence the perception of Tesla in China today? One thing is certain: in the era of instant information, source verification has never been more essential, whether you are a simple consumer or a company executive.