by Durga Velayudham
In recent weeks, reports have emerged that BYD offered a “super tour” of China to media professionals and social-media influencers from abroad — including from Sri Lanka — as part of a broader push to shape global perception of the brand. According to local media reports, one group of journalists and influencers was flown to China at company expense, with another group reportedly to follow once the first returns home. The initiative, ostensibly meant to showcase BYD’s progress and advances, is described by insiders as a strategic effort to counter criticism and manage negative publicity tied to the brand’s local affiliate.
On the surface, the travel perks, access to company facilities, and curated exposure to BYD’s operations seem like standard corporate hospitality. But beneath that veneer lies a troubling pattern suggesting that BYD may be engaging in reputation laundering: using glossy media tours and social-media influencers to distract from serious and very concrete allegations against the company.
Indeed, BYD’s global record in 2024–2025 paints a starkly different picture than the one the PR tours might want to convey. In Brazil — the company’s largest overseas market — labour authorities conducted a surprise inspection at a construction site for a planned BYD electric-vehicle plant. They found that more than 160 Chinese workers were living and working in what the prosecutors described as “conditions analogous to slavery.” Some were reportedly forced to sleep on bed frames without mattresses, housed in overcrowded dormitories, sharing sanitation facilities so inadequate that one bathroom served more than 30 workers, and enduring exhausting work hours with no weekly rest. Passports had allegedly been withheld, up to 70% of wages were withheld, and terminating their contracts carried steep penalties — leaving workers almost wholly dependent on their employers.
Brazil’s Public Labour Prosecutor’s Office (MPT) has taken legal action against BYD and two of its contractors, seeking 257 million Brazilian reais (roughly US$45–50 million) in moral damages plus individual compensation for workers. The lawsuit accuses BYD and its subcontractors of human trafficking and grievous labour-rights violations — claims that, if upheld in court, could mark one of the most serious legal challenges faced by any major global automaker in recent times.
BYD has responded by terminating its contract with the main subcontractor, repositioning the workers into hotels, and insisting in public statements that it respects Brazilian law and human dignity. Yet many labour activists and human-rights observers argue that such corrective steps — taken only after public exposure — cannot undo years of systemic exploitation nor absolve responsibility.
Compounding this, BYD has lately taken a hardline legal approach toward critics and independent content creators. In June 2025, the company announced that it was suing 37 social-media influencers for “online defamation,” while placing another 126 on an internal monitoring list. According to BYD, the influencers had posted “false or misleading content” that harmed its brand, disrupted market order, and allegedly threatened the broader automotive industry. The company backed this with alleged evidence preserved from posts and comments, and even offered large financial rewards — reportedly between 50,000 and 5 million yuan — for verified leads on what it deems defamatory or damaging content.
At least some courts have sided with BYD: a few influencer-led accounts were ordered to apologize and pay damages after being found guilty of defamatory statements. But critics of BYD’s approach warn that such legal pressure, combined with its reward-based monitoring program, risks chilling legitimate free speech — especially in societies and markets where independent journalism and civic oversight are already fragile.
Meanwhile, BYD’s pricing strategy has come under scrutiny for aggressive price cuts and discounting across many of its models, particularly in its home market. Some observers argue that such steep discounts — sometimes amounting to significant reductions from previous prices — may reflect deeper structural issues such as oversupply, inventory buildup, or unsustainable competition tactics.
Taken together, these facts suggest that BYD is increasingly relying on a dual strategy: use of legal firepower and media-influence operations to suppress criticism, and use of marketing incentives (discounts, influencer tours) to project a positive public image. In this context, the “free tours” for foreign journalists and influencers may not be benign goodwill gestures — but deliberate moves to create a favorable narrative, distract from scandals, and gain legitimacy in new markets.
For independent media, regulators, and consumers around the world, what BYD’s case offers is a cautionary example of the costs of corporate power. When a single corporation controls production, marketing, labour, and public perception — and when dissent is met not with reform but legal threats — the line between honest corporate communication and manipulative propaganda becomes dangerously thin.
Whether the lawsuits, investigations, and public backlash will lead to real accountability remains uncertain. But one thing appears clear: behind BYD’s polished global image lies a contested legacy — and a struggle over who gets to decide what the public sees.
