Autel Robotics claims that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is unfairly treating its drones like DJI products, even though the company says regulators have never presented evidence that Autel itself poses a security threat.
In a newly filed response with the FCC, Autel Robotics is aggressively pushing back against efforts to keep its drones on the agency’s so-called “Covered List” — a designation that could effectively block future FCC equipment authorizations and make it almost impossible for the company to sell new drones in the United States.
Autel argues the FCC relied on secret evidence, broad assumptions about Chinese companies, and allegations tied to other firms like DJI rather than actual proof involving Autel itself.
At the center of the dispute is the FCC’s interpretation of the Secure Networks Act and related national security measures targeting foreign-made communications equipment. The FCC’s Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau previously moved to classify foreign-manufactured drones and key drone components as “covered” equipment tied to national security risks. According to Autel, that decision unfairly lumped together entire categories of foreign drones without individualized evidence.
Autel claims the FCC’s actions effectively shut the company out of the US market without due process. “The Constitution does not permit so severe a deprivation to rest on opaque, category-wide assumptions,” the company argues in the filing.
One of the biggest claims made by Autel is that the US government relied on classified information that the company was never allowed to see or challenge. According to the filing, the Department of War confirmed that classified and undisclosed material played a role in the determination process. Autel says that violates basic Fifth Amendment protections because the company was never given meaningful notice or an opportunity to respond before facing major regulatory consequences.
Autel repeatedly cites the 2014 Ralls Corp. v. CFIUS case, in which a federal appeals court ruled that, even in national security matters, affected companies must at least be told the unclassified evidence against them and given a chance to rebut it. The drone maker argues that none of those safeguards were provided here.
For US users of drones like the Autel Evo II Pro, the practical impact matters because FCC equipment authorization is essential for legally importing and marketing wireless devices in America. Without it, future Autel products could effectively disappear from the US market. The company argues this creates both a property and liberty deprivation because it blocks lawful participation in the American drone business.
But perhaps the most closely watched part of the filing involves data security allegations. For years, critics of Chinese drone makers have argued that user data could potentially be accessed by the Chinese government. Autel is now directly countering those concerns with unusually detailed claims about how its systems work.
According to sworn declarations included in the filing, flight data generated by Autel drones is stored locally by default and is not automatically uploaded to company servers. The company says cloud backup features are disabled by default, and users must actively choose to upload information.
Autel further claims that US drone operator data is stored within the United States using local servers or US-based cloud infrastructure rather than servers in China. The company also states it has never received requests from the Chinese government — or from Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, or Venezuela — seeking access to US customer data. According to the filing, it has never transferred US customer data to those governments either.
The filing also emphasizes encryption practices. Autel says its drone communications and stored data use AES-128 or AES-256 encryption, and that no third party has been authorized to access drone operation software or customer accounts.
Related: FCC’s DJI, Autel ban ignores how drones actually work
FCC treated Autel like DJI without evidence
Another major theme throughout the filing is Autel’s attempt to separate itself from DJI.
The company accuses opponents of improperly lumping all Chinese drone manufacturers together or using allegations aimed at DJI to justify action against Autel. In particular, the filing criticizes the Foundation for American Innovation for relying heavily on DJI-specific technical controversies involving AeroScope, mobile apps, and alleged telemetry collection practices.
Autel argues that evidence against one company cannot automatically justify restrictions on another. “A company-specific federal designation cannot be justified by importing one company’s alleged technical defects into the case of another,” the filing states.
The company also pushes back against allegations surrounding Russia. Critics previously pointed to reports suggesting Autel-linked technology may have ended up supporting Russian operations after the invasion of Ukraine. In response, Autel claims it stopped cooperation with Russian customers beginning in March 2022 and has not directly sold drones or components to Russia since then.
The filing says Autel implemented internal compliance controls and sanctions-related restrictions designed to prevent indirect sales into Russia and Belarus. The company additionally claims it never had a cooperative relationship with Aero-HIT, the Russian firm mentioned in prior reporting.
Autel even addresses geofencing, another controversial topic among American drone pilots. Unlike DJI, which historically implemented stronger geofencing restrictions around airports and sensitive areas, Autel has often marketed a more pilot-controlled approach. Critics argued that looser geofencing could create security risks, but Autel says US regulations place responsibility for airspace compliance on drone operators, not manufacturers.
The filing points out that current FAA rules do not require mandatory geofencing systems and claims warning-based geofencing remains common across the industry.
Another interesting section attacks what Autel calls “guilt by jurisdiction.” The company argues that critics are effectively saying any Chinese drone company should automatically be treated as a national security threat simply because Chinese laws theoretically allow government access to corporate data. Autel insists that generalized fears about Chinese law are not enough to justify a company-specific designation under US statutes.
That argument could become increasingly important as Washington debates broader restrictions on Chinese technology products beyond drones.
The filing also reveals frustration over how differently Autel believes it was treated compared to other foreign manufacturers. According to the company, the FCC created temporary exemptions for certain foreign-made drone products qualifying as “domestic end products” but excluded Autel specifically because its products were listed in Section 1709 of the FY2025 National Defense Authorization Act. Autel says regulators never properly explained why the company deserved separate treatment.
For now, the FCC has not issued a final ruling on Autel’s challenge. But the outcome could carry enormous implications for the American drone industry.
If Autel loses, future product approvals in the US could become extremely difficult. If it wins, the case could force regulators to provide far more transparency and company-specific evidence when imposing national security restrictions on foreign tech firms.
Either way, the filing makes one thing clear: the battle over Chinese drones in America is no longer just about hardware. It has evolved into a much larger fight involving constitutional rights, due process, cybersecurity claims, global politics, and the future structure of the US drone market itself.
More: DJI, Autel drones cleared for firmware updates until 2029
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Comments