DJI has filed a federal lawsuit difficult the FCC’s resolution to ban its merchandise from the U.S. market, arguing the company exceeded its authority and violated the Fifth Modification when it added DJI’s drones to the Coated Record with out ever figuring out a particular safety risk.
In December 2025, the Federal Communication Fee added all foreign-manufactured drones and drone elements to its “Coated Record” – successfully banning them from receiving the gear authorizations required to legally function in the USA. The information has upset the majority of drone pilots, in addition to even another American drone corporations.
I rapidly speculated that many corporations, lobbyists and politicians would push again on the legality of such a ban. And I used to be proper. This month, DJI filed a lawsuit difficult the FCC’s resolution so as to add us to the Coated Record.
The petition, filed February 20, 2026 within the U.S. Courtroom of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, marks the start of what might be a years-long authorized battle over whether or not the federal government’s drone restrictions are justified nationwide safety coverage or unconstitutional overreach. Right here’s what it’s good to find out about DJI’s lawsuit in opposition to the FCC:
DJI’s 3 essential arguments
1. The FCC by no means recognized an precise risk
“The FCC can add merchandise to the Coated Record solely once they current a nationwide safety risk, but it has by no means recognized any risk related to DJI or its merchandise,” a DJI spokesperson informed The Drone Woman in a ready assertion.
After years of presidency scrutiny, a number of safety critiques, and repeated Congressional hearings, nobody has publicly demonstrated that DJI drones have really been used to spy on Individuals or compromise nationwide safety. The FCC relied on a December 21 Nationwide Safety Dedication that concluded foreign-made drones posed “unacceptable dangers” with out offering particular proof about DJI’s merchandise.
2. DJI was denied due course of
“Regardless of repeated efforts to interact with the federal government, DJI has by no means been given the prospect to offer info to handle or refute any considerations,” the spokesperson mentioned.
DJI has publicly requested for safety audits for years. Adam Welsh, DJI’s head of world coverage, wrote to Protection Secretary Pete Hegseth in December providing to “be open and clear, and give you the required info to finish an intensive evaluate.”
As a substitute, the FCC issued a ruling primarily based on an interagency dedication with out giving DJI a chance to reply. The petition states that “the FCC exceeded its statutory authority, failed to watch statutorily required procedures, and violated the Fifth Modification when it purported so as to add DJI’s merchandise to the Coated Record.”
3. The ban causes substantial hurt
“The itemizing causes nice hurt to DJI and its clients,” the spokesperson mentioned. “It carelessly restricts DJI’s enterprise within the U.S. and summarily denies U.S. clients entry to its newest expertise, whereas customers elsewhere proceed to profit.”
“Individuals throughout industries—together with small enterprise homeowners, public security officers, farmers, and creators—have been and can proceed to be affected, dropping entry to the instruments they depend on to make a dwelling and save lives.”
A Pilot Institute survey of 8,056 drone operators helps this: 43.4% mentioned dropping entry to new DJI drones would have a “doubtlessly business-ending affect,” and 96.7% of operators presently use DJI merchandise.
The FCC goes past the ruling
The petition states that “The FCC has additionally used the Ruling as a justification to severely limit DJI’s means to import its present merchandise, in addition to new merchandise exterior the scope of the Ruling, into the USA.”
The FCC ban technically solely prevents NEW fashions from getting gear authorizations. Current merchandise with pre-December 22 authorization ought to stay authorized, which embody anticipated new drones just like the DJI Avata 360.
However in line with DJI, the FCC is proscribing imports past what the order requires — doubtlessly affecting drones that had been imagined to be grandfathered in.
DJI’s authorized arguments
DJI’s petition makes three particular claims. The entire under are stable authorized hooks, although nationwide safety instances sometimes obtain substantial deference from courts. Are are these three claims.
The FCC exceeded its statutory authority — DJI argues the FCC didn’t set up that DJI merchandise really pose nationwide safety threats.
The federal government has not been in a position to present precise proof of DJI drones getting used for espionage or posing demonstrated safety threats. DJI’s lawsuit forces the federal government to both produce this proof in courtroom or admit it doesn’t exist.
The FCC did not observe required procedures — Administrative legislation requires companies to offer reasoned explanations, think about related components, and provides affected events discover and alternative to reply.
The FCC violated the Fifth Modification — The Due Course of Clause requires honest procedures earlier than the federal government considerably restricts property rights. DJI’s Fifth Modification declare is especially attention-grabbing. The Due Course of Clause requires honest procedures earlier than authorities considerably restricts property pursuits, however nationwide safety instances get particular deference. Courts hardly ever second-guess government department safety determinations, particularly concerning international corporations.
The query: Is Due Course of safety sturdy sufficient to require a listening to even in nationwide safety instances? Or does nationwide safety deference trump procedural protections?
Going previous drones, the best way the courtroom guidelines on this can impacts how the U.S. authorities restricts different international expertise merchandise sooner or later.
So what’s subsequent?
The petition requests the Ninth Circuit “maintain illegal, vacate, enjoin, and put aside the Ruling.” DJI desires the courtroom to throw out the FCC’s December 22 ruling solely. DJI has additionally filed a movement for reconsideration with the FCC, which has invited oppositions and replies.
Right here’s what seemingly occurs subsequent:
- Quick time period (subsequent few months): Authorities responds, doable preliminary injunction request, briefing interval
- Medium time period (6-18 months): Oral arguments, courtroom resolution, doable appeals
- Long run (1-3 years): Remaining decision at Ninth Circuit, en banc evaluate, or Supreme Courtroom — or settlement earlier than conclusion
DJI’s lawsuit comes amid developments suggesting the ban is extra versatile than introduced, which embody:
This sample suggests restrictions are being handled as negotiable commerce coverage somewhat than pressing safety imperatives — which helps DJI’s argument that the “unacceptable threat” dedication lacks factual basis.
Listed here are a couple of doable outcomes for drone pilots:
- Finest case: The courtroom invalidates the ruling, restoring market entry
- Good case: The courtroom requires correct procedures, creating delay and higher requirements
- Average case: The lawsuit pressures negotiated settlement with safety audits as an alternative of blanket ban
- Even dropping would possibly assist: A years-long authorized battle creates area for political modifications or commerce negotiations
What drone pilots ought to do now
DJI’s lawsuit doesn’t instantly change something for drone pilots.
Keep in mind, present DJI drones will not be banned. All drones which are accepted on the market within the U.S. (sure, which means something accessible on Amazon, B&H, Finest Purchase or different main retailers…or even used from different pilots), can nonetheless legally be purchased and offered. Merchandise accepted earlier than December 22 can nonetheless be offered.
It’s simply that future DJI fashions gained’t have the ability to get gear authorization below this present state.
And don’t surrender hope, both. The Trump administration has proven willingness to reverse insurance policies rapidly. A “nice deal” with China may embody market entry for DJI with enhanced safety necessities.
DJI has legit procedural arguments. After years of requesting safety audits, they acquired banned with no listening to primarily based on obscure determinations that don’t establish particular threats.
However DJI faces an uphill battle. Courts give huge deference to government nationwide safety determinations. The federal government will argue that requiring detailed public proof would compromise intelligence sources and strategies.
My prediction: The Ninth Circuit seemingly gained’t overturn the ban outright. They may require higher procedures or extra particular justifications, resulting in a modified strategy — safety audits, enhanced monitoring, knowledge localization necessities — somewhat than blanket prohibition.
Extra seemingly than a clear courtroom victory? I believe DJI’s lawsuit will create sufficient uncertainty and delay that it will get resolved by way of commerce negotiations somewhat than judicial resolution.
Right here’s what DJI mentioned in an emailed assertion after submitting the lawsuit: “DJI takes the safety of its merchandise very critically. The corporate has lengthy advocated for unbiased, goal evaluate of its merchandise. As a part of our dedication to the U.S. market and our clients throughout quite a few industries, we’ll proceed to interact constructively with the FCC and different stakeholders.”
Associated
Uncover extra from The Drone Woman
Subscribe to get the newest posts despatched to your electronic mail.