One was scolded for being locked, one was scolded for not being locked. Whose interests are the automakers' "digital fences" actually protecting?

Recently, two strange things happened in the automotive circle, and they must be viewed together.

A Zeekr, the owner drove abroad themselves, got locked for over 30 hours right after entering Kazakhstan. A Li Auto L9, the owner said the car was stolen domestically, but the location also appeared in Kazakhstan.

One actively locked, one not locked. Regarding vehicle cross-border, should automakers lock them?

Zeekr: Self-driving abroad, locked for 30 hours

On July 16, Henan owner Mr. Liu drove a Zeekr 9X to start a Eurasian self-driving tour. As soon as the car entered Kazakhstan, the next day the car system popped up a bunch of prompts——

Navigation unusable, music unplayable, storage box stuck, documents cannot be retrieved.

Even more extreme, the fuel cap won't open, cannot refuel. This car only has one basic driving function remaining.

Lasting over 30 hours, the in-car screen repeatedly popped up prompts "Vehicle status abnormal, please contact official customer service", to unlock must return to domestic authorized store.

Mr. Liu told the store he was going abroad before departure, but no one reminded him about locking the car.

Zeekr responded: Vehicles sold domestically only have authorization for use within the country, triggering security protection mechanisms after leaving the border to prevent theft, robbery, and illegal export. Car owner wants to unlock? Yes, submit passport, customs documents, purchase contract, invoice, driver's license, visa... full set of materials.

Netizens exploded: I spent 500,000 to buy this car, and going abroad I still have to report to you?

Li Auto: L9 disappears into thin air, theft or debt?

Look at Li Auto again.

Hangzhou owner Mr. Luo, received system notification in March this year: Li Auto L9 APP control permissions expired.

Where is the car? Car is gone. Location shows, this car appeared in Kazakhstan.

Owner questioned: Did Li Auto remotely unlock it and smuggle the car out of the country? Public opinion rapidly fermented, "Disappearing Li Auto" topped the hot searches.

Interestingly, this came out exactly on the day of the Li Auto L6 launch, the timing was quite delicate.

But the situation quickly reversed — police and media investigation found: This car was mortgaged three times.

First time mortgaged to WeBank, loaned 300,000; second time mortgaged to Zhenong Microcredit, loaned 200,000; third time directly pledged to private lending party, even the physical key was handed over.

This isn't over. The owner also did something: Replaced the third physical key, causing the keys in the pledge party's hand to fail directly. Pledge party found car keys unusable, drove the car away overnight, transported all the way to Horgos, cleared customs overnight. Upon arriving in Kazakhstan, to allow local buyers to use it normally, the pledge party also applied to unbind the original owner's account permissions. This is not car theft, this is a debt dispute.

Li Auto legal department issued a statement on April 22: Never participated in illegal transfer, no hacker cracking involved, remote operations were all executed by the actual registered person's own account.

Locked or Not Locked, Both Scolded

Putting two things together for comparison, it's interesting.

Zeekr locked — scolded.

Owner went abroad for self-driving, inexplicably locked for 30 hours, even fuel cap won't open, experience extremely poor.

Li Auto didn't lock — also scolded.

Some comments said: Geely too proactive, locked as soon as going abroad; Li Auto too passive, watched the car drag from Hangzhou to the seaside, transported to Horgos, exited country. Later, to let overseas buyers use it, even unbound the original owner account permissions.

Locked gets scolded, not locked also gets scolded. Whatever automakers do is wrong. But is the problem really that simple?

Why do automakers set up "digital fences"?

This thing really isn't automakers being idle. Behind it there are three layers of logic:

First, black and gray industries are rampant

The price difference between domestic and foreign new energy vehicles is huge.

Zeekr 009 domestic over 400,000, Singapore sells over 2 million; BYD Han domestic over 200,000, Europe sells to over 500,000. Smuggling cars abroad, profit space is how big, you calculate. One car smuggled out, profit can double or triple. The black industry chain behind this is far bigger than imagined.

Second, regulatory hard requirements

February this year, Ministry of Industry and Information Technology and other eight departments jointly issued "Safety Guidelines for Automotive Data Outbound (2026 Edition)", vehicle location, trajectory, mapping data, cannot be casually sent abroad. Automakers without geographic fences, they violate the law themselves first.

Third, industry common practice

Tesla, BMW, Mercedes-Benz have similar restrictions in border areas. Same logic as remote locking phones lost — not to harm you, but to protect you.  Prevent vehicles from being illegally sold, or stolen and then sold abroad.

July 26, Zeekr announced emergency rectification:

First, APP launched "Cross-border Protection" function, one-click self-service unlock.

Second, develop "Cross-border Protection Function Switch", default off, owner decides to open or not before leaving country.

Third, 24-hour customer service priority channel.

Say simply — return the initiative of locking car back to owner.

As for Li Auto, legal department clarified in April, but public opinion storm continues.

The core contradiction of these two things is actually just one:

Automakers' geographic fences, are they protecting owners, or restricting owners? The answer might be — both.

Without this mechanism, smuggling, theft, data violations would be rampant. But execution methods are too crude, indeed let compliant users suffer losses in silence.

So Zeekr's rectification direction is right: default no lock, let owner choose before leaving country.  Handing choice rights to users is more reliable than any "thinking for you". After all, car belongs to user, not automaker.