As discussions surrounding the "DJI Ban" gain momentum, particularly in reference to the Countering CCP Drones Act, it is crucial                                                      to provide a clear analysis of the bill and address prevalent misconceptions.

The Countering CCP Drones Act aims to include DJI (Da-Jiang Innovations), a leading Chinese drone manufacturer (Shenzhen DJI Sciences and Technologies Ltd.) on the FCC Covered List, a designation that already applies to other Chinese companies such as ZTE and Huawei.

This Act is part of broader U.S. efforts to address national security concerns related to Chinese technology. You can read more about the potential Tik Tok ban here.

Inclusion on the FCC Covered List prevents a company and its affiliates from obtaining FCC authorization for their devices in the United States. Products displaying an FCC ID have undergone extensive testing to ensure non-interference with other devices. This authorization is critical as it allows radio equipment to be sold and operated in the U.S. without requiring a special FCC license.

For DJI drones, FCC authorization enables the operation of drones that broadcast signals in the U-NII bands, 2.4 GHz, and 5.8 GHz, without needing individual licenses for each product.

Should the Countering CCP Drones Act be enacted, DJI would be prohibited from obtaining new FCC IDs for their drones, making                     it illegal to sell or operate these drones in the U.S. due to the lack of legal signal broadcasting capability.

Currently, existing DJI drones that have already been granted FCC authorization will not be immediately impacted. However, the situation remains fluid. In February 2023, the FCC determined that it possesses the legal authority to retroactively revoke authorization for devices on the Covered List but has not yet exercised this power.

DJI announced that those persons who own current DJI model drones may also lose the ability to fly their existing products, if DJI’s FCC authorizations are revoked.

The FCC has the authority to fine sellers of new, unauthorized DJI drones, as evidenced by past actions, such as the multi-million dollar fine imposed on Hobby King for selling illegal FPV transmitters. Furthermore, the FCC could request U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to intercept unauthorized DJI models at the border.

In the event of revocation of authorization for existing drones, the FCC could potentially seize drones from operators and issue fines. However, given the FCC's limited enforcement capacity, primarily focused on addressing critical issues like illegal jammers and pirate radio stations, comprehensive enforcement of a DJI ban at the individual level is unlikely without explicit congressional mandate.

The functionality of existing DJI drones would depend entirely on DJI's actions. The U.S. government does not possess a "kill switch" for DJI drones. While DJI does have a No Fly Zone (NFZ) system, it is improbable that DJI would enforce an NFZ across the entire U.S. Users could resist such updates, thereby maintaining the operability of their drones.

The potential ban extends beyond drones to include other DJI products, such as the Action, Osmo Pocket, and Ronin series, which also rely on WiFi and Bluetooth technology.

As currently written, the Countering CCP Drones Act would prevent these products from obtaining new FCC IDs, thereby prohibiting their sale and operation in the U.S.

The State of Florida passed a law (Florida statute 934.50) in 2021 that prohibits government agencies and law enforcement from utilizing drones that are not on the approved manufacturer list.

This Florida law rendered government owned DJI products illegal in the State and forced government agencies and law enforcement to ground $200 million worth of State-owned DJI drones.

Critics of the law explain there are no comparable alternatives to DJI products which are superior in terms or price and quality.

Pursuant to section 934.50(7)(b), Florida Statutes, the department hereby provides the following list of approved manufacturers whose drones may be purchased or otherwise acquired and used by a governmental agency under section 934.50, Florida Statutes:

1. Skydio
2. Parrot
3. Altavian
4. Teal Drones
5. Vantage Robotics

Many DJI owners are accusing Skydio, an American drone manufacturer, of lobbying the US government to ban DJI drones, in essence lobbying competitors out of the market.

However, the company's co-founder and CEO has recently denied this allegation publicly on LinkedIn. On behalf of the Skydio, the CEO stated “we had nothing to do with [the Countering CCP Drone Act] and have not lobbied in favor of it.”

Startups are delivering their drone technology to Ukraine to replace DJI drones ever since Ukrainian officials have called for limiting the use of DJI drones, saying technical glitches in the company’s products may have been intentional by DJI to sabotage the country’s defense.

DJI is viewed across the industry, even by its competitors, as the best in the business because of its advanced technology, which is both easy enough for any hobbyist to use and cheaper than other models.

On the other hand, American drones are more expensive than DJI drones and can have long wait times, as U.S. companies have limited manufacturing capabilities and inefficient supply chains and chip shortages since the coronavirus pandemic.

The Countering CCP Drones Act and the potential ban on DJI drones in the United States highlight the intricate relationship between technology, national security, and regulatory frameworks.

By understanding the potential impacts and preparing proactively, companies can navigate this evolving landscape and continue to leverage drone technology for growth and innovation.

Della Torre Law is committed to assisting businesses in maintaining compliance and thriving amidst regulatory changes in the United States.*

*This article is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult with a qualified legal professional for specific guidance. 

Della Torre Law, PLLC