Texas Attorney General Targets Anzu Robotics For Alleged Drone Scandal

The Texas Attorney General’s Office has launched a lawsuit against Anzu Robotics, alleging that the company is selling drones that are essentially clones of DJI’s UAVs without disclosing their true nature to consumers. The suit claims that Anzu’s products are “a 21st-century Trojan horse linked to the Chinese Communist Party” and seeks damages under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Consumer Protection Act.

At the heart of the lawsuit is Anzu’s claim that its drones, particularly the Raptor T model, are an American-made alternative to DJI’s products. However, a detailed analysis by Texas investigators and independent security researchers suggests that Anzu’s drones are, in fact, identical to DJI’s Mavic 3 Enterprise in terms of hardware, firmware, and software.

The lawsuit alleges that Anzu initially failed to disclose its relationship with DJI in regulatory filings with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and marketed itself as an American alternative without prominently clarifying the overlap between the two companies’ products. Texas also claims that Anzu has misrepresented its policies and practices regarding customer data sharing, software security vulnerabilities, and custom firmware development.

Anzu’s CEO, Randall Warnas, has been accused of being a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” who has created a company as a “cutout” for DJI to sell its products in the US despite existing bans. The lawsuit also claims that Anzu’s drones are part of a larger scheme to get around the inclusion of DJI products on the Texas Prohibited Technologies List, which prohibits the use of listed companies’ hardware on state-owned devices and networks.

The dispute highlights the growing tensions between the US government and Chinese companies in the tech industry. In recent years, several high-profile drone manufacturers, including DJI, have faced scrutiny over their ties to China and allegations that they are being used for espionage purposes.

DJI has denied any wrongdoing and has stated that its partnership with Anzu is purely a business arrangement. However, the lawsuit claims that Anzu’s actions are a threat to national security and that the company’s products pose significant risks to consumers and businesses in the US.

The case has sparked concerns among lawmakers and consumer advocacy groups, who argue that companies like Anzu are taking advantage of loopholes in regulations to evade scrutiny and reap profits. The lawsuit seeks civil penalties of up to $10,000 per violation, injunctive relief, and court orders requiring Anzu to clearly disclose its products’ origins.

As the case unfolds, it is likely to have significant implications for the drone industry as a whole. If Anzu’s drones are deemed functionally equivalent to DJI drones under regulatory definitions, they could face similar restrictions in government procurement and critical infrastructure use. This would affect police departments, surveyors, construction firms, and utility operators who may have purchased Anzu equipment believing it fell outside DJI-related bans.

The case also raises broader questions about the role of supply chains and intellectual property in the tech industry. As companies continue to globalize their operations, they are increasingly relying on complex networks of suppliers and partners to produce their products. However, this can create risks and uncertainties that are difficult to navigate.

In response to the lawsuit, Anzu has emphasized its American ownership, Malaysian-based manufacturing, and US-hosted infrastructure. The company’s website and public webinars have acknowledged a licensing agreement with DJI, but claim that it was developed independently and securely. However, Texas investigators argue that this is not the case, citing evidence of technical analysis that shows Anzu’s firmware is signed and encrypted using DJI’s cryptographic keys.

The lawsuit highlights the challenges faced by regulatory bodies in policing the tech industry. As companies like Anzu continue to push the boundaries of innovation and globalization, regulators must navigate complex webs of supply chains, intellectual property, and international partnerships to ensure that consumers are protected and national security interests are safeguarded.

Ultimately, the outcome of this case will depend on the court’s decision and the evidence presented by both sides. The dispute highlights the need for greater transparency and accountability in the tech industry, particularly when it comes to the origins and ownership of critical components used in high-stakes technologies like drones.