Autel Robotics Fires Back At Fcc Over Unfair Drone Restrictions
The Battle for American Drone Markets: Autel Robotics Takes on the FCC’s Unfair Treatment In a …
19. May 2026
Fcc Under Fire Over Drone Ban Ruling As Autel Unveils Secret Evidence
The Drone Ban Rests on Secret Evidence and Borrowed Allegations Aimed at DJI: Autel Tells FCC
In May, Autel Robotics filed a reply in ET Docket 26-23, the FCC’s proceedings related to the Covered List. The reply reveals classified material and technical complaints originally aimed at DJI that Autel claims were used by the agency to add the company to its list of restricted entities.
The FCC’s decision to place Autel on the Covered List was made in December 2025, when the agency issued a Public Notice that listed foreign-made drone manufacturers as being subject to stricter regulations. The notice included DJI and several other companies, but also swept in every foreign-made drone manufacturer regardless of whether national security agencies had reviewed them individually.
Autel argues that the FCC’s decision was made without giving the company meaningful notice or an opportunity to respond. The company claims that the determination process relied on classified and undisclosed material, citing language in the Department of War’s own filings as acknowledgment that such material was used.
The Fifth Amendment Claim: A Constitutional Argument
Autel’s filing relies heavily on Ralls Corp. v. CFIUS, a 2014 D.C. Circuit ruling that held national security review cannot rest on opaque, category-wide assumptions without giving affected companies access to at least the unclassified portion of the record against them. Autel applies this logic to the FCC proceeding, arguing that the Constitution does not permit so severe a deprivation of due process.
The company also argues that the determination process relied on borrowed allegations aimed at DJI, and that evidence against one company cannot automatically justify restrictions on another. Section 1709 of the FY2025 National Defense Authorization Act named DJI and Autel together, but the FCC’s Public Notice swept in every foreign-made drone manufacturer regardless of whether national security agencies had reviewed them individually.
Operational Claims: A New Level of Transparency
In its reply, Autel provides new details about its data handling practices that were not previously seen in the FCC record. According to the filing, flight data is stored locally by default and not automatically uploaded to company servers. Drone communications and stored data use AES-128 or AES-256 encryption. No third party has been authorized to access drone operation software or customer accounts.
These claims are significant because they provide a level of transparency that was previously lacking in the FCC record. The filing puts these operational details into the docket precisely so the next round of FCC deliberation cannot dismiss Autel with the same category-wide framing the original Public Notice used.
The encryption and local-storage claims made by Autel are specific enough to be tested. If a national security agency holds data that contradicts these claims, the FCC reply now creates a record where that contradiction has to surface. If no such contradiction exists, the December 22, 2025 Public Notice will look less like a security determination and more like the categorical industrial policy critics have always argued it is.
The same logic applied when the FCC extended the same playbook to consumer routers in March without showing its evidence then either. The operational claims made by Autel are not abstract assurances; they are specific details that a national security agency could verify or rebut.
A Unique Situation: The FCC Is the Only Forum
Autel’s Application for Review at the FCC is the slowest of the legal pathways open to foreign drone makers blocked by the Covered List. The China Unicom precedent shows the agency taking nearly three years to resolve a similar reconsideration petition. DJI’s parallel Ninth Circuit case (Case 26-1029) tests whether the FCC met its statutory burden under the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act, and DJI’s separate D.C. Circuit appeal of the Pentagon’s Section 1260H designation runs on a different proceeding entirely.
Autel has no parallel Ninth Circuit lawsuit on file. Its case lives or dies at the FCC, making the substance of this reply more consequential for Autel than the equivalent reply is for DJI.
DroneXL has been following Autel’s case since September 2020, when the company announced its made-in-USA EVO II Dual Bundles. The filing of this reply sharpens the constitutional arguments that Autel has raised and creates a new level of transparency in the FCC record.
The Joint-Venture Clause: A Separate Issue
What Autel did not address in this filing, and was not required to, is the joint-venture clause in Section 1709 that bars the company from setting up domestic production through partnerships with US manufacturers. The SiFly, Mobilicom, ScoutDI, and Verge exemptions in March showed the conditional approval pathway works for non-Chinese manufacturers willing to onshore covered components.
The SiFly exemption represents a rare instance of FCC consideration of domestic production. The conditional approval pathway for these companies is not applicable to Autel, which remains barred by statute.
Autel’s reply has sharpened the constitutional arguments that the company has raised against the FCC and created a new level of transparency in the FCC record. The operational claims made by Autel are specific enough to be tested, and the encryption and local-storage practices provide a level of detail that was previously lacking in the FCC record.
Autel’s Application for Review is uncertain, but one thing is clear: the company will continue to fight for its rights as a foreign drone maker blocked by the Covered List.
Original Source
- [Read the full article here](https://aiwirenews.com/posts/fcc-under-fire-over-drone-ban-ruling-as-autel-unveils-f7b3a1/)