DJI, the world’s dominant consumer drone manufacturer, has filed a federal lawsuit against the Federal Communications Commission, challenging the agency’s decision to place the company on a restricted list that effectively bars it from selling new products in the United States. The legal action, filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, marks a dramatic escalation in the years-long standoff between the Shenzhen-based company and American regulators who view its products as a national security threat.
The lawsuit targets the FCC’s March 2025 decision to add DJI to its “Covered List” — a registry of communications equipment and services deemed to pose unacceptable risks to U.S. national security. Placement on this list means the FCC will not authorize new equipment from DJI, effectively blocking the company from bringing any new drones or related devices to the American market. As The Verge reported, DJI argues that the FCC acted without proper legal authority and violated the company’s due process rights in making the designation.
A Company Cornered by Escalating Restrictions
DJI controls an estimated 70 to 80 percent of the global consumer and commercial drone market, a dominance that has made it a focal point for lawmakers and national security officials concerned about Chinese technology operating in American airspace. The company’s products are used by everyone from real estate photographers and Hollywood filmmakers to farmers conducting crop surveys and firefighters assessing wildfire damage. But that ubiquity is precisely what alarms Washington.
The company’s troubles in the U.S. have been building for years. In 2020, the Department of Defense placed DJI on a list of Chinese military companies. The Department of Commerce added it to the Entity List in 2021, restricting its access to certain American technologies. Then came the legislative push: the Countering CCP Drones Act, which passed the House as part of the National Defense Authorization Act, sought to codify restrictions against DJI and other Chinese drone makers. The FCC’s Covered List designation, however, represents perhaps the most commercially devastating blow, because it directly prevents the company from obtaining the equipment authorizations necessary to legally sell wireless devices in the United States.
The Legal Arguments: Due Process and Statutory Authority
In its court filing, DJI contends that the FCC overstepped its statutory authority under the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act of 2019, the law that created the Covered List mechanism. According to the company, that statute was designed to address risks posed by equipment embedded in U.S. telecommunications infrastructure — not consumer electronics like camera drones. DJI argues that its products do not connect to or form part of any telecommunications network and therefore fall outside the scope of the law.
DJI also alleges that the FCC failed to provide adequate notice or a meaningful opportunity to respond before making its determination. The company says it was not given access to the classified or unclassified evidence underlying the decision, making it impossible to mount an effective defense. “DJI has been denied the basic procedural protections that American law requires,” the company stated in a press release accompanying the filing, as reported by The Verge. The company has consistently maintained that its products do not transmit user data to the Chinese government and that it has implemented multiple data security features, including a “Local Data Mode” that severs all internet connectivity.
National Security Concerns Drive Bipartisan Action
The U.S. government’s concerns about DJI are rooted in broader anxieties about Chinese technology companies and their relationships with Beijing. Under Chinese law, companies can be compelled to cooperate with state intelligence operations, a fact that has fueled suspicion about any Chinese-made device capable of collecting data on American soil. Drones, which can capture high-resolution imagery of critical infrastructure, agricultural land, and populated areas, present a particularly sensitive case.
Bipartisan support for restricting DJI has been notable. Republican and Democratic lawmakers have both raised alarms, with figures like Representative Elise Stefanik and Senator Mark Warner pushing for tighter controls. The Countering CCP Drones Act, sponsored by Representative Mike Gallagher before he left Congress, attracted broad support. Proponents argue that even if DJI’s current products do not actively exfiltrate data, the potential for exploitation — through firmware updates, software vulnerabilities, or direct government compulsion — is too significant to ignore given the scale of DJI’s market presence.
The Industry Fallout: Who Fills the Void?
The practical consequences of the FCC’s action extend well beyond DJI’s corporate bottom line. American drone operators across dozens of industries have come to rely on DJI hardware because of its combination of capability, reliability, and price. No American or allied manufacturer currently offers a comparable product line at similar price points across the full range of consumer, commercial, and enterprise applications. Companies like Skydio, the leading U.S.-based drone manufacturer, have been working to fill the gap, but their products tend to be more expensive and, in some categories, less feature-rich.
Public safety agencies have been particularly vocal about the disruption. Fire departments, police forces, and search-and-rescue teams across the country use DJI drones daily. A coalition of more than 100 public safety organizations sent a letter to Congress in 2024 opposing an outright ban, arguing that it would compromise emergency response capabilities without a viable domestic alternative readily available. The concern is not theoretical: during wildfire season in California, DJI drones have been instrumental in providing real-time aerial intelligence to incident commanders.
DJI’s Counteroffensive: Lobbying, Litigation, and Public Relations
DJI has mounted an aggressive multi-front defense. Beyond the lawsuit, the company has invested heavily in lobbying efforts in Washington, hiring prominent firms and former government officials to make its case on Capitol Hill. The company has also pursued a public relations strategy aimed at framing the restrictions as harmful to American consumers, businesses, and first responders rather than protective of national security.
The company has pointed to independent security audits conducted by firms like Booz Allen Hamilton and FTI Consulting, which it says found no evidence of unauthorized data transmission. DJI has also emphasized that its newer products are assembled in part at facilities outside China, and it has explored the possibility of establishing manufacturing or final assembly operations in countries that might assuage U.S. concerns. However, skeptics note that hardware assembly location does not address concerns about firmware and software, which are developed and updated from DJI’s headquarters in Shenzhen.
The Broader Context: Tech Decoupling Between the U.S. and China
DJI’s legal battle is unfolding against the backdrop of an accelerating technological decoupling between the United States and China. The restrictions on DJI mirror actions taken against Huawei, ZTE, and other Chinese technology firms over the past several years. The pattern is consistent: national security agencies identify a risk, legislative and regulatory bodies impose restrictions, and the targeted company challenges the measures through legal and political channels.
The DJI case, however, presents some unique dimensions. Unlike Huawei, whose equipment is embedded in telecommunications backbone infrastructure, DJI’s products are consumer and commercial devices that do not directly interface with critical communications networks. This distinction is central to DJI’s legal argument and could make the case a significant test of how broadly the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act can be applied. Legal experts have noted that if the court sides with the FCC, the precedent could extend the Covered List mechanism to a wide range of consumer electronics from Chinese manufacturers — a prospect with enormous implications for trade and technology policy.
What Comes Next: Courts, Congress, and Market Realities
The D.C. Circuit case is likely to take months, if not longer, to resolve. In the interim, DJI products already authorized and on the market remain legal to purchase and operate, but the company cannot introduce new models or updated versions of existing products. This creates a slow-motion squeeze: as technology advances and competitors release new products, DJI’s American inventory will gradually become outdated.
Congress, meanwhile, continues to consider additional legislative measures. The Countering CCP Drones Act could still be enacted as standalone legislation or attached to another must-pass bill. If it becomes law, it would impose restrictions that go beyond the FCC’s administrative action, potentially banning the operation of DJI drones in certain contexts and prohibiting federal agencies from purchasing or using them.
For now, the American drone industry watches and waits. DJI’s lawsuit is not merely a corporate legal dispute — it is a test case for how the United States balances national security imperatives with the commercial realities of a globalized technology supply chain. The outcome will shape not only the future of the drone market but also the broader framework for how Washington regulates foreign technology on American soil. The stakes, for DJI, its competitors, and the millions of Americans who fly its products, could hardly be higher.