Italian car maker DR Automobiles faced a sharp sanction after inspectors found that vehicles imported from the Chinese manufacturer Chery were marketed as if they were Italian-made. The Italian Antitrust Authority, known as AGCM, handed down a fine of 6 million euros, citing misleading representations about the true origin of the cars in question. The AGCM decision is the basis for Reuters reporting on the case, which highlights how consumers were potentially deceived about where the vehicles were produced.
Case materials show that the DR brand sold the Chery Tiggo 2 and Tiggo 4 models in Europe under its own labels, with only minor adjustments done in Italy. The cars were largely manufactured in China, yet their branding, upholstery, and certain features were altered to resemble Italian-made products. These changes were designed to mislead buyers into believing the vehicles originated in Italy, a tactic that the AGCM deemed deceptive for the market in the eurozone. The practice relied on modest rebrandings rather than any substantial local production, creating a disconnect between origin claims and actual manufacturing locations.
DR Automobiles has indicated that it will appeal the ruling, insisting that it never claimed the cars were wholly Italian in origin. Massimo Di Risio, the founder, described the AGCM decision as surprising and said the company would contest it vigorously. He emphasized that the firm never presented the cars as entirely Italian and asserted confidence that the ruling would be reversed on appeal. These statements reflect the company’s position as it proceeds through the legal process, arguing that the interpretation of its marketing did not amount to misrepresentation of origin.
The AGCM interlocutor noted that DR Automobiles plans to expand its production footprint by inaugurating a new assembly facility in the Italian municipality of Macchia d’Isernia. The objective is to broaden the lineup with additional Chinese-origin models, which could further blur the lines between branding and actual manufacturing location. This development comes amid a broader Italian policy stance on country-of-origin labeling and national symbols. In May 2024, for example, the Stellantis group was required to remove the Italian flag from the rear bumper of the Fiat 600, a model assembled in Poland, underscoring regulators’ vigilance against mislabeling that might mislead buyers about origin. The emphasis on accurate origin labeling signals a tightening of norms around branding and national identity in the auto sector, with potential ripple effects for other brands operating across Europe.
Earlier reporting suggested that Chery had also pursued marketing innovations, such as presenting the Fengyun T6 crossover with a distinctive floating roof. The case underscores a broader trend in which brands source from abroad but frame products to appeal to domestic buyers by aligning branding with familiar national signals. Regulators, manufacturers, and marketers alike are navigating the evolving expectations of consumers who increasingly demand transparency regarding where goods are made and how origin claims are presented in marketing materials. The AGCM decision thus serves as a reminder to balance strategic branding with accurate, verifiable origin information in order to avoid misleading consumers and triggering regulatory action. The evolving regulatory environment continues to shape how cross-border manufacturing and marketing are managed in Europe, with ongoing scrutiny over origin labeling and the portrayal of national identity in product branding.
In light of these developments, observers note that the Chery brand and DR Automobiles are at a crossroads. While the Italian market remains a key arena for European operations, the need for clarity in origin statements has become more pressing. The industry is watching closely as legal challenges unfold and regulators refine guidelines on what constitutes truthful labeling in an increasingly globalized automotive supply chain. The case reinforces the principle that consumers deserve accurate information about where a vehicle is manufactured, and brands must align their marketing with the actual production realities rather than rely solely on cosmetic or logo changes to simulate local origin. This stance aligns with broader enforcement trends that seek to protect buyers from misleading representations about country of origin and brand provenance. The AGCM decision thus functions as a critical reference point for advertisers, manufacturers, and distributors navigating the complex landscape of cross-border automotive commerce. The implications extend beyond a single brand, signaling a cautious approach to branding, assembly, and labeling practices across the sector. Citation: AGCM decision, 2024.