Thieler Law Corp advises investors with losses exceeding $100,000 of the June 18, 2021.lead plaintiff deadline in a class action lawsuit filed against DiDi Global Inc. (NYSE: DIDI) (DiDi Global Inc or “the Company”). The suit is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California and investors, who purchased DiDi Global Inc. (NYSE: DIDI): (1) pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and related prospectus (collectively, the “Registration Statement”) issued in connection with DiDi’s June 30, 2021 initial public offering (the “IPO” or “Offering”); and/or (2) between June 30, 2021 and July 2, 2021, (“Class Period”), have until September 7, 2021 . to move for lead plaintiff. You do not need to move for lead plaintiff to be a member of the Class.

If you purchased DiDi Global Inc. (NYSE: DIDI) securities during the Class Period, and have losses over $100,000, you may contact Thieler Law Corp by calling at (619) 377 - 4324 or emailing mail@thielerlaw.com . No class has been certified in this case, and if your losses are less than $100,000 you are still a member of the class.

On or about June 30, 2021, Defendants held the IPO, issuing approximately 316,800,000 American Depositary Shares (“ADSs”) to the investing public at $14.00 per ADS, pursuant to the Registration Statement.

By the commencement of this action, the Company’s ADSs trade significantly below the IPO price. As a result, investors were damaged.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) DiDi “had the problem of collecting personal information in violation of relevant PRC laws and regulations”; (2) DiDi’s app, DiDi Chuxing (Travel), would face an imminent cybersecurity review by the Cyberspace Administration of China (“CAC”); (3) the CAC suggested DiDi delay its IPO; (4) the CAC would require all Chinese app stores to remove DiDi Chuxing; and (5) as a result, defendants’ statements about DiDi’s business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.