Kevin Jun Lin, Corporate Lawyer

Read This Before Reading

1. The incident is still under investigation.As of October 12, 2026, there is no authoritative conclusion on the true cause of the pedal fracture, whether it constitutes a statutory ‘defect,’ or whether a recall is required,nor on any of these matters..
2. This article is a legal analysis, not a finding of fact.The judgments on the responsible entities herein are built upon twospeculative premises—that ‘media reports are true’ and ‘the usual industry cooperation model’—,all subject to verification..
3. This does not constitute any negative characterization of any enterprise.This article does not find that Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. or Anhui Jianghuai Automobile Group Corp., Ltd. (JAC) is at fault, nor does it constitute investment advice. For specific rights protection, please rely on authoritative investigation conclusions and case-specific evidence.

One-Sentence Conclusion (Directly Citable): Under current law, whoever signs the certificate of conformity is the ‘producer.’ MIIT filing information shows that the producer and trademark of Zunjie are bothAnhui Jianghuai Automobile Group Corp., Ltd. (JAC), so JAC is the first-ranking entity bearing product liability and recall obligations to consumers; Huawei is not automatically exempt simply because it ‘does not build cars’—it may enter the liability chain through three paths: ‘co-producer/joint tort,’ ‘sales channel,’ and ‘misleading publicity’—but all of this depends on the cause determination of the pedal fracture, and as of publicationthere is still no authoritative conclusion.

I. The Conclusion First: Five Sentences to Understand the Liability Allocation

1. JAC is the external first-in-line liable party. The criterion is not brand ownership, but Article 8 of the Regulations on the Recall of Defective Automobile Products: the producer is ‘the enterprise that lawfully establishes within China’s territory, produces automobile products, andissues the certificate of conformity in its own name.’
2. Huawei is not naturally exempt. Huawei is responsible for product definition, the smart cockpit, intelligent driving, the electrical/electronic architecture, and the sales channel; the boundary of its liability depends on its actual degree of participation in ‘design finalization’ and ‘external publicity.’
3. ‘Higher than the national standard’ does not equal ‘no defect’. The current mandatory national standard governs ‘pedal force shall not exceed 500N’ (how hard it is to press), and sets no limit on the pedal body’s fracture resistance; the recommended industry standard QC/T 788-2018 is about 1500N longitudinal force, and imposes no special requirement on non-metallic materials. Compliance and ‘existence of unreasonable danger’ can coexist.
4. ‘Free upgrade’ cannot automatically substitute for ‘recall’. The remedial measures under Article 19 of the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests and Article 1206 of the Civil Code are ‘stop sale, warn, recall,’ not ‘voluntary upgrade.’
5. Consumers’ relief channels are open: Article 23 of the Automobile Three-Package Provisions (within 60 days / 3,000 km, brake-system failure allows free replacement or return), paragraph 3 of Article 23 of the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests (burden of proof reversed within 6 months), and the product-liability provisions from Article 1202 of the Civil Code—three paths may run in parallel.

⚠️Important Note: All liability judgments in this article are built upon the twospeculative premisesthat ‘media reports are true’ and ‘the usual cooperation model.’ Why the pedal fractured, whether it is a design or manufacturing defect, and whether it constitutes a statutory ‘defect’must all be determined by the defect-investigation conclusion of the market regulator or by judicial appraisal. This article does not constitute a characterization of any party.

II. Lay the Foundation First: Established Facts vs. Facts Yet to Be Proved

The first step in analyzing legal liability is not to find the statute, but to distinguish what are ‘facts’ and what are still ‘claims.’

2.1 Relatively Established Facts (Media Public Reports)

Product and Cooperation Model (Public Information): The Zunjie V800 is a range-extended large MPV, launched in August 2026, priced at 766,000—1,016,000 yuan; Huawei and JAC signed an intelligent new-energy vehicle cooperation agreement in December 2023; the publicly reported division of labor is—Huaweiresponsible for product definition, the HarmonyOS cockpit, Qiankun intelligent driving (ADS), the Tuling chassis platform, the electrical/electronic architecture, and the sales channel,JACresponsible for vehicle engineering implementation, mechanical hardware design such as body and chassis, parts procurement, factory manufacturing, and factory quality inspection. MIIT filing information shows that the producer of the Zunjie S800 isAnhui Jianghuai Automobile Group Corp., Ltd. (JAC) (vehicle model HFC7000DEV8), with the trademark ‘Jianghuai brand.’

2.2 Four Questions Still to Be Proved, Directly Determining Liability Attribution

These four questions, this articledoes not answer, but only explains: different answers lead to completely different liability conclusions.

III. Who Is the ‘Producer’ in Law? This Step Determines Everything

This is the most critical and least discussed step of the whole matter.

3.1 The Statutory Standard: Look at the Certificate of Conformity, Not the Brand

Regulations on the Recall of Defective Automobile Products (State Council Decree No. 626, revised 2019)Article 8, paragraph 2:

The ‘producer’ as referred to in these Regulations means the enterprise that is lawfully established within China’s territory, produces automobile products, andissues the certificate of conformity in its own name. An enterprise that imports automobile products from outside China for sale within China is deemed the producer referred to in the preceding paragraph.

This definition is very ‘hard’—it does not look at how big your brand presence is, nor at whether you stand center-stage at the launch event; it only looks atwho is named on the certificate of conformity.

Combined with public information: MIIT’s ‘Announcement of Road Motor Vehicle Manufacturers and Products’ filing and the vehicle’s rear-end label show that the producer of the Zunjie model is Anhui Jianghuai Automobile Group Corp., Ltd. (JAC), with the trademark ‘Jianghuai.’ Accordinglyspeculated(to be verified against the original certificate of conformity): in the sense of the Regulations on the Recall of Defective Automobile Products,JAC is the statutory ‘producer’.

3.2 What This Means

Once JAC is recognized as the producer, the following obligations fall directly on it, andcannot be contractually transferred to Huawei:

Note the second item of Article 24—’concealing defect circumstances‘ is itself an independent penalty scenario. This point is very critical to the later choice between ‘free upgrade’ and ‘recall.’

IV. Can ‘Higher Than the National Standard’ Provide Exemption? — Compliance ≠ No Defect

The core sentence in the official response is ‘completed the full-process development and verification in accordance with requirements higher than the national standard and higher than the industry standard.’ What can this sentence legally block?

4.1 Two Criteria for Determining a Defect

Please note the ‘or‘ structure in both definitions. It means: conforming to the standard is only one circumstance of ‘not constituting a defect,’not the only circumstance. Even if the national/industry standard is met, as long as it is found to involve ‘unreasonable danger,’ it can still constitute a defect.

4.2 Why ‘Compliant’ and ‘Fractured’ Can Coexist This Time

According to public reports and industry analysis:

• The current mandatory national standard (GB 21670 / GB 7258 system) on brake pedals centers on‘pedal force at maximum braking effectiveness shall not exceed 500N’—it governs ‘how hard it is to press,’not ‘whether the pedal can withstand force’.
• The industry recommended standard QC/T 788-2018 requires the pedal to withstand about1500N longitudinal force without cracks, but it is arecommendedstandard, and imposes no special requirement on non-metallic materials.
• The peak pedal force in this actual test was1612N (Dongchedi’s figure).

Thus appears the seemingly contradictory yet actually reasonable phenomenon:A car can simultaneously be ‘above the national standard’ and ‘have a fractured pedal’. The reason is simple—the existing standards simply do not set limits on this dimension.

Put another way:A gap in standards is not a ground for exemption, but the entry point for judging ‘unreasonable danger’. In a specific case, the people’s court can wholly bypass the standard and directly use the common-sense benchmark that ‘a rational driver, in an emergency, stamping the brake with full force, the pedal should not fracture’ as the reasonableness standard.

4.3 The Weight of ‘Three Units Fracturing at the Same Location’

widely existsthe requirement, pushing the issue from ‘isolated individual case’ toward‘batch nature’.Conversely, if it is confirmed that the fracture requires unconventional operation such as ‘lateral force’ to occur, then establishing ‘unreasonable danger’ becomes difficult—because the law protects

‘reasonably foreseeable use’, not abuse beyond design expectations.This is precisely the core of the dispute between the two sides, and also a question that must be answered by an authoritative body.

V. The Boundary of Huawei’s Legal Liability: Four Possible Paths

Huawei repeatedly emphasizes ‘Huawei does not build cars.’ This statement has legal significance, but

is not a universal exemption charm. The following four paths, any of which is established, may bring Huawei into the liability chain—but each requires evidentiary support, and all are presently speculative.Path One: Recognized as ‘Co-Producer’ → Joint and Several Liability

Article 1168 of the Civil Code: where two or more persons jointly commit a tortious act causing damage to others, they shall bear

joint and several liability.If it can be proven that Huawei deeply participates in product definition, holds veto or final say over the structural scheme of safety components such as the brake pedal, and externally appears sufficient to make consumers believe it is a co-manufacturer, there is room for it to be recognized as a co-producer.

Key point of judgment

: not to look at equity or brand, but atthe actual control over the formation of the defect.Path Two: As Seller / Channel Party → Civil Code Art. 1203 and Consumer Law Art. 40

Article 1203 of the Civil Code: the infringed person may claim compensation from the product’s

produceror from the product’sseller; where the defect is caused by the producer, the seller, after paying compensation, has the right to recover from the producer.Article 40 of the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests likewise establishes the two-way channel of ‘seller pays first, may recover from producer.’

Public reports state that Huawei is responsible for the

sales channel (e.g., the HarmonyOS Intelligent Mobility experience centers). If the sales contract, the invoicing entity, or the actual contracting party points to a company within the Huawei system, consumers may directly claim against it.Path Three: Misleading Publicity → Consumer Law Arts. 45 and 55

This is the path with Huawei’s largest risk exposure.

Article 20 of the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests: an operator’s information on the quality, performance, etc. of goods or services it provides shall be

• truthful and comprehensive, and it may not make false ormisleading publicity.Paragraph 3 of Article 45 of the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests:
• Where a social group or other organization, or an individual,in a false advertisement or other false publicity concerning goods or services related to consumers’ life or health, recommends to consumersthe goods or services,causing damage to consumers, it shall bearjoint and several liabilitywith the operator providing the goods or services.Paragraph 1 of Article 55 of the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests: where an operator commits fraudulent conduct, the amount of increased compensation is
• three timesthe price the consumer paid for the goods (‘refund one, pay three’).If the publicity repeatedly emphasizes ‘above the national standard’ and ‘higher safety redundancy,’ while the actual structural redundancy is below the conventional level of same-price or even same-supplier other models, it may fall into ‘misleading.’

It must be emphasized

: whether fraud is constituted requires proving ‘intentionally informing of false circumstances or intentionally concealing true circumstances.’ Merely ‘test results below expectations’ is not sufficient to establish fraud. The threshold for this path is high,and it is far too early to reach a conclusion.Path Four: Internal Recovery → Civil Code Art. 1204

Article 1204 of the Civil Code: where a defect in a product is caused by the fault of a

third partysuch as a carrier or warehouse keeper, causing damage to others, the product’s producer or seller, after paying compensation, has the right to recover from the third party.This is a path

between enterprise and enterprise: after JAC compensates externally, if the defect originates from the technical solution or product definition provided by Huawei, it may recover from Huawei under the cooperation agreement; and vice versa.This is the separation of ‘who is responsible to the consumer first’ and ‘who ultimately pays’—external liability to consumers, internal recovery between enterprises.VI. Can ‘Free Upgrade’ Substitute for ‘Recall’?

This is currently the most practically valuable question.

6.1 The list of remedial measures required by law does not include ‘voluntary upgrade’

Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests

Article 19:Where an operator discovers that the goods or services it provides have a defect posing a danger to personal or property safety, it shall

immediately report to the relevant administrative departmentandnotify consumers, and take measures such asstopping sale, warning, and recall, harmlessly disposing, destroying, or stopping production or service. Where a recall measure is taken, the operator shall bear thenecessary expensesincurred by consumers due to the recall.Article 1206 of the Civil Code:

After a product is put into circulation, if a defect is discovered, the producer and seller shall promptly take remedial measures such as stopping sale, warning, and recall;

if remedial measures are not promptly taken or are inadequate, causing the expansion of damage, they shall also bear tort liability for the expanded damage. Where a recall is taken pursuant to the preceding paragraph, the producer and seller shall bear the necessary expenses incurred by the infringed person thereby.6.2 Why Substituting ‘Upgrade’ for ‘Recall’ Is Risky

Dimension

First, circumventing the statutory procedure may be characterized as ‘inadequate remedial measures.’

Once personal injury caused by the same defect occurs in the future, the victim may invoke Article 1206 of the Civil Code to claim ‘inadequate remedial measures’ and demand liability for the expanded portion.Second, it may touch punitive damages.

Article 1207 of the Civil Code: where one knowingly produces or sells a product with a defect, or fails to takeeffectiveremedial measures as provided in the preceding article, causing death or serious health damage to others, the infringed person has the right to claim correspondingpunitive damages. Paragraph 2 of Article 55 of the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests also provides that where one knowingly provides a defect and causes death or serious health damage, the victim has the right to claim punitive damages ofnot more than doublethe suffered loss.Conclusion (speculative)

: If the authoritative investigation ultimately finds a defect exists, then the handling of ‘substituting free upgrade for recall’ will be evaluated as an adverse circumstance in subsequent civil compensation. Conversely, if the investigation finds no defect, then proactively offering an upgrade is instead a plus.This is a high-risk choice; the direction depends on the facts.VII. Which Paths Can Consumers Take?

7.1 Five Parallel Relief Channels

Channel

7.2 An Underestimated Weapon: Reversal of the Burden of Proof

Paragraph 3 of Article 23 of the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests:

Where themotor vehicle, computer, television, refrigerator, air conditioner, washing machine, or other durable good, or decoration service, provided by an operator, develops a defect withinsix monthsfrom the date the consumer accepts the good or service, and a dispute arises, theoperatorbears the burden of proof regarding the defect.

This means: for disputes over the pedal/braking within 6 months of new-car delivery,the consumer need not prove ‘the car is faulty’, but the operator must prove its own innocence. This clause is extremely powerful in practice.

7.3 Consumers Who Ordered but Not Yet Taken Delivery

If delivery has not yet occurred, one may typically claim:

• The operator has publicly stated the need to ‘optimize component design,’ constituting anadmissionof room for improvement in the subject matter;
• framed on Articles 563 (statutory rescission) or 582 (price reduction/replacement) of the Civil Code, claim rescission of the contract andrefund of the deposit;
• if a fundamental breach frustrates the purpose of the contract, the deposit claim has strong support;
• if the operator has no fraudulent circumstance, merely claiming ‘double return of the deposit’ is difficult and requires case-by-case judgment.

All of the above belong tospeculation under usual circumstances, and the case result depends on the contract terms (especially the nature of the deposit), delivery time, and the evidence situation.

7.4 Four Things to Do Right Now

1. Preserve evidence: vehicle purchase invoice, three-package certificate, delivery order, sales communication records (WeChat, recordings), and screenshots of promotional pages.
2. Preserve the vehicle’s condition: Do not disassemble, replace, or modify pedal-related components on your own—this may be cited as a ground for exemption under Article 32 of the Provisions on Repair, Replacement, and Return of Household Automobiles.
3. Use written channels: Submit a written objection to the seller and require a response within the statutory time limit (Article 28 of the Three-Package Provisions: respond within 10 working days, complete the qualifying case within 20 working days).
4. Pursue multiple channels in parallel: file a complaint via 12315, report defect clues to the market supervision authority (Defective Product Recall Technical Center), and seek mediation through the consumers’ association—all of which may run in parallel with litigation or arbitration.

VIII. Extended Risks: The Enterprise Side and the Capital Market (all speculative, pending confirmation)

8.1 Retroactive Effect of the Four-Department New Rules

On October 10, 2026, the four-department draft for comment proposed: reliability verification tests of no less than 30,000 km, environmental-adaptability verification of no less than 1 year, and for insufficient test verification or submission of false materials—no announcement will be granted, and where safety hazards exist, the producer mustcease production and implement a recall. Some reports indicate that existing products must supplement verification materials before July 1, 2027.

Speculation:: Once the new rules take effect, ‘insufficient real-world testing’ will be elevated from a moral criticism toa punishable administrative matter. For this incident, if insufficient verification is ultimately established, the enterprise will face administrative consequences across the entire ‘announcement—production—recall’ chain.

8.2 Information Disclosure of the Listed Company

JAC Motors is an A-share listed company; its shares hit the lower limit for two consecutive trading days, wiping out over RMB 10 billion in market value over two days. If the company fails to timely fulfill its information-disclosure obligations after becoming aware of the major quality incident, it may trigger compliance issues under the Securities Law and discussions of investor claims.

⚠️ No conclusion is drawn here:: whether a major event is constituted, whether the disclosure threshold is met, and whether the company was already aware—all must be determined by the company’s announcements and regulatory findings. This section merely flags the existence of this risk line.

IX. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q1: Is there any official conclusion on this matter at present?A: As of October 12, 2026,there is none. The China Automotive Technology and Research Center (CATARC) has issued a survey questionnaire to automakers regarding the material of the brake-pedal assembly; the four-department new rules are in the comment-seeking stage; and People’s Daily has published a commentary on the incident. Whether a statutory defect is constituted and whether a recall is required still await the defect-investigation conclusion of the market supervision authority or a judicial appraisal.

Q2: In the Zunjie V800 brake-pedal fracture case, who should one pursue legally—Huawei or JAC?A: The first in line externally is JAC. Under Article 8 of the Regulations on the Recall of Defective Automobile Products, the ‘producer’ is the enterprise that issues the product certificate of conformity in its own name; MIIT filing information shows that both the manufacturer and the trademark of Zunjie are Anhui Jianghuai Automobile Group Co., Ltd. At the same time, consumers may also claim against the seller under Article 1203 of the Civil Code. Whether Huawei bears liability depends on its actual involvement in design finalization and promotion, and must be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Q3: If the automaker says it is ‘above the national standard,’ does that mean no recall is needed?A: No. Conformity with mandatory standards is only one scenario of ‘not constituting a defect.’ Both Article 46 of the Product Quality Law and Article 3 of the Regulations on the Recall of Defective Automobile Products use an ‘or’ structure to preserve an independent criterion of ‘other unreasonable dangers that endanger personal or property safety.’ The current national standard for pedals provides that ‘pedal force shall not exceed 500N,’ but sets no limit on the fracture-resistance capacity of the pedal body itself.

Q4: Does a pedal force of 1612N count as an extreme condition?A: This is the technical crux of the dispute, and there is as yet no authoritative conclusion. The recommended industry standard QC/T 788-2018 provides roughly 1500N longitudinal force without cracking; some enterprises’ publicly disclosed execution standards are 2500N–3000N. Whether it falls within ‘reasonably foreseeable use’ must be determined by a defect investigation or judicial appraisal.

Q5: What is a ‘defect’? Is it the same as ‘failing to meet quality standards’?A: They are not the same. ‘Failing to meet quality standards’ generally refers to non-conformity with express standards or agreements; a ‘defect’ emphasizesan unreasonable danger that endangers personal or property safety. A product may fully conform to standards yet still harbor a defect—this is precisely the legal crux of the present incident.

Q6: Can owners who have already taken delivery demand a refund/return of the vehicle?A: If brake-system failure occurs within 60 days from the start of the three-package period or within 3,000 km of mileage (whichever comes first), the owner may demand a free replacement or return under Article 23 of the Provisions on Repair, Replacement, and Return of Household Automobiles. Beyond that window, it depends on whether the conditions for replacement/return under Article 24 are met, or the owner may claim rescission of the contract under Article 610 of the Civil Code.

Q7: What is the difference between a ‘free upgrade’ and a ‘recall’?A: A recall comprises a whole set of statutory procedures—reporting to the regulatory authority, announcing to the public, ceasing production and sales, filing the recall plan, submitting a summary report, accepting effectiveness evaluation, and bearing the costs of defect elimination and transportation (Articles 16–21 of the Regulations). A ‘free upgrade’ is a voluntary service act by the enterprise and does not trigger the above procedural obligations. The two differ in legal characterization and also in the evaluation of subsequent liability.

Q8: Do owners need to prove the vehicle is defective themselves?A: Not within 6 months of delivery. Paragraph 3 of Article 23 of the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests provides that where a dispute arises over a defect found within 6 months of delivery of a durable good such as a motor vehicle, the burden lies with theoperator (business)to bear the burden of proof.

Q9: Can Huawei’s claim of ‘not building cars’ shield it from liability?A: It cannot fully exempt liability. ‘Not building cars’ may exclude its characterization as a ‘producer’ within the meaning of the Regulations on the Recall of Defective Automobile Products, but it cannot exclude the possibility of liability under paths such as joint tort (Article 1168 of the Civil Code), seller liability (Article 1203 of the Civil Code), or misleading publicity (Articles 45 and 55 of the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests).

X. Conclusion

What is truly worth remembering from this storm is not ‘who should take the blame,’ but three statements:

First, the identification of the liable entity looks at the name on the certificate of conformity, not the seat on the launch stage.

Second, compliance is only the floor, not a get-out-of-jail-free card. It is precisely where standards are silent that the adjudication of ‘unreasonable danger’ comes into play.

Third, the manner of crisis handling itself generates legal liability.A ‘free upgrade’ is goodwill, but goodwill cannot substitute for statutory procedures; if a defect is ultimately established, handling that evades a recall will become an adverse factor in subsequent compensation.

People’s Daily put it aptly:‘The brake pedal of an automobile must never ‘fracture’ while being driven.’ This sentence is plain, yet in law it is precisely the most accessible expression of ‘unreasonable danger.’

⚠️ Disclaimer

1. The factual events cited in this article all originate frompublic media reports, including Dongchedi’s test videos and explanations, the Zunjie Automobile official Weibo ‘Situation Statement,’ People’s Daily client commentary, reports on the four-department draft for comment, MIIT product filing information, etc.,and the author has not independently verified them..
2. This article’s judgments on ‘who is the producer,’ ‘whether a defect is constituted,’ and ‘whether Huawei bears liability’are all built on the speculative premises that ‘media reports are true’ and ‘the industry’s usual cooperation model applies,’ and constitute legal-analysis opinions,not a finding of fact,.
3. The true cause of the pedal fracture, whether it constitutes a ‘defect’ as referred to in Article 3 of the Regulations on the Recall of Defective Automobile Products, and whether a recall needs to be initiated, must all be determined bythe defect-investigation conclusion of the State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) or a judicial appraisal as the standard.
4. This article does not constitute an adverse characterization of Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., Anhui Jianghuai Automobile Group Co., Ltd., or any other entity,nor does it constitute legal advice or investment advice to any party.
5. The article numbers cited herein have been verified article by article, but readers should still rely on the latest effective text when protecting their rights in specific cases, and consult a professional lawyer in light of the evidence of the individual case.

📎 Appendix: List of Major Laws and Articles Cited in This Article

Author of this article: Lawyer Lin Jun, Guangdong Zhenpin Law Firm. Practice areas: equity disputes, enterprise-related commercial matters and business-crime defense, corporate compliance, and product liability.

Further Reading

• Why a Startup Needs a ‘Legal Partner’: Full-Cycle Protection from Equity Design to Compliance
• A Shareholder Siphoned Off the Money—Who Pays the Company’s Debts? Standards for Identifying Capital Fleeing and the Legal Liability
• What to Do in a Corporate Deadlock? Conditions, Procedure, and Practical Points for a Judicial Dissolution Action