Published
June 23, 2026
Pending Appeal · No Court Ruling Yet
This article describes an active regulatory dispute. DJI's claims about the FCC's authority, the alleged procedural and constitutional defects, and its projected sales losses are arguments DJI has made in its filings; they have not been adjudicated. The FCC disputes that the court can even hear the case yet. No court has ruled on the merits. This is not a class action — there is nothing to claim. This page is informational and is not legal advice.
What Is This About?
DJI, the world's largest drone maker, has filed a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Case No. 26-1029) challenging a Federal Communications Commission order that effectively blocks imports of new DJI drones and related equipment into the United States. The petition, filed February 20, 2026, asks the court to vacate and enjoin the FCC's December 22, 2025 decision adding foreign-made drones and critical drone components to the agency's national-security “Covered List.”DJI argues the FCC exceeded its statutory authority, skipped procedures it says the law required (including a national-security review contemplated by the FY2025 National Defense Authorization Act), and denied DJI due process by acting without DJI-specific evidence or notice. The company says the order puts roughly $1.56 billion of its projected 2026 U.S. sales at stake. DJI has retained former U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar and former FCC attorney Travis LeBlanc, signaling a high-stakes fight. The case remains in an early, procedural posture: as of June 2026, the Ninth Circuit has not ruled on either DJI's request to pause the appeal or the FCC's motion to dismiss.
Status
Pending · No Decision Yet
9th Cir. Case 26-1029 · Petition filed Feb. 20, 2026
Claimed Losses
~$1.56 billion in 2026 U.S. sales
DJI's internal estimate — ~$700M existing products · ~$860M blocked launches
Can I Claim?
No — regulatory case, nothing to claim
Not a class action; existing FCC-authorized DJI drones remain legal
The FCC's Covered List Order
On December 22, 2025, the FCC's Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau updated the Covered List to include all foreign-made unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) and certain critical drone components, citing a national-security assessment the agency has not made public. The action was framed as flowing from the FY2025 NDAA. As a practical matter, listing a product suspends new FCC equipment authorizations, so DJI says the agency will no longer approve its new models — and equipment that cannot be authorized cannot be lawfully imported and sold in the United States.Importantly, the order targets new authorizations. According to DJI, existing authorizations for products already on the market remain valid, so devices Americans already own continue to operate normally. The dispute is about what happens to the next generation of DJI hardware, not the drones already in people's hands.
How the Case Got Here
The procedural history has moved on two tracks — one at the FCC and one in court:- Dec. 22, 2025: The FCC adds foreign-made UAS and critical drone components to the Covered List, citing a national-security assessment tied to the FY2025 NDAA. Existing authorizations remain valid; new ones are suspended.
- Jan. 21, 2026: DJI petitions the FCC for reconsideration of the decision (ET Docket No. 26-22).
- Feb. 20, 2026: DJI files a petition for review in the Ninth Circuit (Case 26-1029), seeking to vacate and enjoin the order.
- Mar. 6, 2026: The FCC moves to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
- Apr. 15, 2026: DJI opposes dismissal, frames the case as raising constitutional issues, and asks the court for a roughly six-month abeyance while FCC reconsideration proceeds.
- May 4, 2026: The FCC files a reply in support of dismissal.
- Jun. 9, 2026: DJI submits an ex parte filing in FCC Docket ET 26-22, including an independent security assessment of two drone models.
- Jun. 16, 2026: The FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology opens a public comment period on DJI's ex parte submission, with comments due August 28, 2026.
- Expected ~Nov. 2026: If the abeyance is granted, a status report would be due around November 2026; merits briefing on the underlying questions would follow in 2027 if the appeal proceeds.
DJI's Key Legal Arguments
DJI contends the Covered List update is unlawful on several fronts, while the FCC argues it is simply too early for a court to weigh in.Statutory authority and process. DJI argues the FCC can only restrict products based on a specific threat finding under the relevant NDAA provisions and FCC rules, and says no DJI-specific analysis or notice was provided. DJI contends a national-security agency was supposed to evaluate DJI (and competitor Autel) before any ban, and asserts that no such individualized assessment occurred — instead, it says, the FCC's action swept in many devices without case-by-case findings.
Due process. DJI asserts it was deprived of fair notice and an opportunity to respond, arguing the order summarily cut U.S. customers off from its newest technology without a hearing or disclosed evidence. DJI notes it filed for reconsideration, but says the listing took effect first.
Appointments Clause. In a further constitutional argument, DJI contends that if FCC bureau staff can unilaterally impose sweeping restrictions without full-Commission or judicial review, the officials wielding that power must be properly appointed; it points to the bureau chief who issued the order and invokes the principles of Lucia v. SEC.
The FCC's finality and jurisdiction defense. The FCC counters that its December order is not “final” as to DJI because DJI itself asked the agency to reconsider. Citing the Hobbs Act and its own precedent, the Commission argues a petition filed while reconsideration is pending is premature, so the Ninth Circuit lacks jurisdiction. DJI responds that this approach would let the agency “run out the clock” by delaying a decision on reconsideration and indefinitely postponing judicial review — which is part of why it asked the court to hold, rather than dismiss, the case.
DJI's Claimed Damages
In its filings, DJI quantifies the commercial impact. It says 14 existing products — five drone models and nine other devices such as cameras and controllers — had their FCC authorizations set aside when the Covered List was expanded, which DJI estimates at roughly $700 million in lost 2026 revenue. On top of that, DJI says it had 25 new products planned for 2026 that now cannot obtain FCC approval, projecting about $860 million in foregone sales. Combined, that is the roughly $1.56 billion figure.DJI also points to downstream effects on U.S. businesses and public agencies — in agriculture, emergency response, utilities, inspections, and filmmaking — that rely on its equipment, and cites industry survey data and user comments to the FCC describing a lack of comparable U.S.-made alternatives. These damage figures come from DJI's internal estimates and submitted market data; they are detailed but have not been independently verified.
The Independent Security Assessment
DJI commissioned a U.S. security firm, OnDefend, to audit two recent systems (the DJI Air 3S and Matrice 4E) between October 2025 and March 2026. According to DJI, the assessment reported no evidence of malware, no hidden communications routed outside the United States, and no unexplained radio emissions or hardware tampering in those products, characterizing the issues it did find as low-risk and typical of complex devices. DJI has publicized the report and urged the FCC to consider it.The FCC has not directly challenged that technical finding, and it remains unclear publicly what specific concerns motivated the listing. A Pentagon filing submitted to the FCC docket in April 2026 reportedly cited classified intelligence to support the restriction, but that submission is under seal, so its contents are not public. DJI argues the classified memo arrived after the December order and that the agency's initial public notice relied on a broad interagency assessment that was not specific to DJI.
What It Means for Current DJI Owners and Businesses
Existing DJI drones and equipment remain legal to own and operate in the United States. The order principally stops new FCC authorizations: retailers may still sell already-approved inventory, and owners can keep flying their current models. No current user is required to unregister or return a device.What changes going forward is supply. Without new authorizations, U.S. shops cannot import the latest DJI models, creating an opening for domestic manufacturers and other foreign competitors. Early signs point to U.S. makers ramping up agricultural drones and software, but many commercial operators — farmers, first responders, inspectors — have told the FCC that comparable alternatives are not yet available. Those user comments are individual viewpoints submitted to the agency, not findings by the FCC or any court.
This Is Not a Class Action
Unlike most cases covered here, this is not a consumer class action, settlement, or recall. DJI is suing a federal agency over a regulatory decision; it is not resolving claims with its customers. There is no claims process, no compensation fund, and no payout for DJI owners or buyers. Existing owners do not lose any current rights. The dispute is a regulatory and constitutional challenge whose outcome will shape whether new DJI hardware can re-enter the U.S. market.What Happens Next?
The near-term question is procedural: whether the Ninth Circuit dismisses the petition as premature or holds it in abeyance while the FCC finishes reconsidering. If the case is paused, a status report would be expected around November 2026, with merits briefing — including the statutory and constitutional questions — likely in 2027 should the appeal go forward. In parallel, the FCC's reconsideration docket (ET 26-22) continues, with public comment on DJI's security submission open through August 28, 2026. Until a court or the agency acts, the Covered List order stands and new DJI authorizations remain suspended.Frequently Asked Questions
Are DJI drones still legal to own and fly in the U.S.?
Yes. Existing DJI drones and equipment that already received FCC authorization remain legal to own and operate. The December 2025 Covered List order principally stops new FCC authorizations, which blocks imports of new DJI models; it does not require current owners to unregister or return devices they already have.
What is the FCC Covered List and how does it affect DJI?
The Covered List is an FCC list of communications equipment deemed to pose national-security risks. On Dec. 22, 2025 the FCC's Public Safety Bureau updated the list to include foreign-made drones and critical drone components, citing a national-security assessment tied to the FY2025 NDAA. The effect is that the FCC will not approve new DJI products, which DJI says blocks their U.S. import.
What is DJI asking the court to do?
DJI filed a petition for review in the Ninth Circuit (Case 26-1029) seeking to vacate and enjoin the FCC's Covered List action. It also asked the court to hold the appeal in abeyance for about six months while the FCC completes its reconsideration. The FCC has moved to dismiss, arguing the order is not yet final because DJI's reconsideration petition is pending.
Is this a class action or is there money to claim?
No. This is a regulatory and constitutional challenge by DJI against the FCC, not a consumer class action. There is no settlement, no claims process, and no payment available to DJI owners or buyers.
How much does DJI say the ban will cost it?
In its court filings DJI estimates roughly $1.56 billion in lost 2026 U.S. sales — about $700 million from 14 existing products whose FCC authorizations were set aside, plus about $860 million from 25 new products it planned to launch in 2026 that now cannot obtain FCC approval. These are DJI's internal estimates and are not independently verified.
Sources
- Petition for Review, SZ DJI Technology Co. v. FCC, No. 26-1029 (9th Cir., filed Feb. 20, 2026), and subsequent motion-to-dismiss briefing (FCC motion Mar. 6, 2026; DJI opposition Apr. 15, 2026; FCC reply May 4, 2026).
- CourtListener — docket for Case 26-1029 (9th Cir.), filings through May 2026.
- Federal Communications Commission — Covered List update designating foreign-made UAS and critical drone components (Dec. 22, 2025) and FCC Office of Engineering & Technology public notice opening comment on DJI's ex parte submission, ET Docket 26-22 (June 16, 2026).
- Reuters — “Chinese dronemaker DJI sues to challenge US import ban on new models” (Feb. 24, 2026).
- The Verge — “DJI sues over the FCC's decision to block new drone imports” (Feb. 24, 2026).
- DJI official communications (press statements and blog posts) and the OnDefend independent security assessment of the DJI Air 3S and Matrice 4E (Oct. 2025–Mar. 2026).
- RC Flight Gear — DJI Sues the FCC (industry coverage of DJI's challenge to the FCC drone import ban).
Court Filing: DJI's Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss (PDF)
DJI's April 15, 2026 Opposition to the FCC's Motion to Dismiss (Ninth Circuit Case 26-1029, DktEntry 21.1), filed by Cooley LLP, is embedded below.Free settlement alerts
Get notified when new class actions open to claims
Join thousands of readers who get the latest class action settlements you may qualify for — delivered straight to your inbox.
For more class actions keep scrolling below.
Status
Pending — no decision yet
Case Title
SZ DJI Technology Co. v. FCC
Case Number
No. 26-1029
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Date Filed
February 20, 2026
Latest Development
FCC reconsideration comment period open through Aug. 28, 2026 (ET Docket 26-22)
Court Docket
CourtListener — Case 26-1029
