DJI Informs Ninth Circuit of 25 Unreleased Products in Regulatory Uncertainty, $1.56 Billion at Stake

DJI Files Brief in Ninth Circuit Case Against FCC

On April 15, 2026, DJI submitted a detailed brief in its ongoing legal battle with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), revealing significant financial implications for the company. This marks the first time DJI has quantified the impact of the FCC’s actions, citing 14 products with voided FCC authorizations, including five drones and nine non-drone items, as well as 25 planned launches for 2026 that are now blocked from the U.S. market. The company estimates a total loss of $1.56 billion for the current calendar year.

The brief, which opposes the government’s motion to dismiss, frames the case as a constitutional issue regarding the FCC’s authority to ban foreign products without judicial review. It is signed by Travis LeBlanc, a partner at Cooley LLP and former FCC enforcement chief, and Elizabeth Prelogar, the 48th Solicitor General of the United States.

Details of the Blocked Products

DJI’s filing provides a comprehensive overview of the products affected by the FCC’s actions. The 14 blocked items include:

• Five uncrewed aircraft
• Nine non-UAS items, such as cameras and stabilizers

DJI anticipates a $700 million loss from these voided authorizations alone. Additionally, the company has identified 25 planned product launches for 2026 that are now unable to receive FCC approval, projecting another $860 million in losses. While the specific products are not named, they are expected to include updates to popular lines such as the Mini and Mavic series, as well as new enterprise models.

Legal Arguments Against FCC’s Authority

In its brief, DJI argues that the FCC is attempting to avoid judicial scrutiny of its decisions. The FCC’s ban took effect on December 22, 2025, but the agency claims that DJI cannot pursue legal action until the full Commission addresses DJI’s reconsideration petition filed on January 21, 2026. There is no set timeline for the Commission’s response, raising concerns about potential delays.

DJI cites a precedent involving China Unicom, which took nearly three years for the FCC to resolve a similar reconsideration petition. The company contends that the FCC’s actions could result in significant financial harm without timely judicial review.

Constitutional Concerns Raised

Among the arguments presented, DJI raises a constitutional issue regarding the Appointments Clause. The brief suggests that if the FCC’s Bureau staff can unilaterally ban entire product categories without a Commission vote or judicial oversight, it may violate constitutional provisions regarding the appointment of officials. The brief references the Supreme Court case Lucia v. SEC, which addressed the appointment of officials with significant authority.

Request for Case Abeyance

DJI is not seeking a ruling on the merits of the case at this time. Instead, it requests that the Ninth Circuit deny the FCC’s motion to dismiss and place the case in abeyance for six months. This would allow time for the FCC to act on DJI’s reconsideration petition. If the Commission makes a ruling during this period, the Ninth Circuit case could become moot.

The brief also highlights that U.S. national security agencies did not specifically investigate DJI products prior to the FCC’s ban, raising questions about the basis for the Bureau’s actions.

Impact on U.S. Drone Buyers

As of now, all DJI drones that received FCC authorization before December 22, 2025, remain legal for import, sale, and operation. However, the filing clarifies that five new drone models and nine non-drone products are currently blocked, with an additional 25 launches for 2026 also stalled. Unless there is a change in the Ninth Circuit’s position or the FCC’s reconsideration, U.S. buyers should not expect new DJI products through authorized retail channels in 2026.

Conclusion

The financial implications of the FCC’s actions are significant, with DJI’s legal team reframing the case as a constitutional issue. The Appointments Clause argument could have broader implications beyond the drone industry, potentially affecting other companies on the FCC’s Covered List. The FCC’s recent actions and the timeline of events suggest a desire to delay judicial review, which may impact the availability of DJI products in the U.S. market for the foreseeable future.