FCC Fines Eight Alleged DJI “Front” Companies $25,000 Each Over Rebranded Gear
The US Federal Communications Commission has proposed $25,000 fines against eight companies it suspects of acting as fronts for banned DJI drones and cameras, escalating a months-long investigation into whether the Chinese manufacturer is dodging a national security blacklist by selling identical hardware under different names. The Notices of Apparent Liability, signed by FCC Enforcement Bureau Chief Patrick Webre, target Cogito Tech Company Limited, Fikaxo Technology Inc., Lyno Dynamics LLC, Skyhigh Tech LLC, Spatial Hover Inc., SZ Knowact Robot Technology Co., Ltd., WaveGo Tech LLC, and Xtra Technology LLC. For gamers, streamers and drone-racing pilots who rely on DJI’s FPV and action-cam gear for content and competition, the case matters far beyond the paperwork violations at its centre.
Eight Companies, $200,000 in Total Proposed Penalties
According to drone-industry outlet DroneXL, each company is being penalized for refusing to respond to the FCC’s Letters of Inquiry, a procedural violation that carries its own penalty regardless of what the eventual product investigation finds, with the Bureau having issued those letters in May 2026 asking whether each firm markets equipment tied to the Covered List. None of the eight replied, which triggered the fines announced on July 10. Camera-and-photography outlet PetaPixel independently confirmed the same figure, reporting that the FCC issued $25,000 fines to each of the eight companies after they allegedly ignored letters requesting information about their operations, with a deadline of July 20 before the agency considers additional enforcement measures.
Crucially, the FCC has not yet ruled that any of the eight actually violated the ban itself. As TechRadar notes, any company on the Covered List isn’t going to get FCC approval, essentially meaning their products are banned — but the current fines punish silence, not confirmed hardware violations.
How a GitHub Bot Named Cogito, Fikaxo and Skyrover
The paper trail behind the case runs through independent security researcher Konrad Iturbe, whose automated detection tool flagged the brands long before the FCC acted. Per DroneXL’s reporting, Iturbe’s automated detection system, published openly on GitHub, flagged the brands months before the FCC acted, searching FCC filings for devices using the same unique proprietary communication protocol found in DJI equipment listed under Section 1709 of the FY25 National Defense Authorization Act. The findings pointed to concrete products: Cogito’s Specta Mini and Specta Air drones, sold through Amazon by a Hong Kong company incorporated in June 2022, carried that protocol fingerprint, as did hardware from the other flagged brands, including the Fikaxo drone investigated in September 2025 and the same aircraft that later migrated to Spatial Hover’s website.
PetaPixel adds that the resemblance goes beyond internal protocols and into product branding. WaveGo Tech and SZ Knowact have been associated with the Skyrover drone brand, while Xtra Technology has sold action cameras that closely resemble DJI’s Osmo Action lineup. Xtra’s flagship Osmo Pocket 4 Pro look-alike, marketed as the Muse Pro, has become one of the most cited examples in coverage of the case.
DJI’s Covered List Ban and the Ninth Circuit Fight
The front-company probe sits on top of a much bigger regulatory fight. The FCC placed DJI, Autel Robotics and other foreign drone makers on its Covered List on December 22, 2025, a designation that blocks new equipment authorizations on national security grounds. DJI has disputed the underlying rationale ever since, and DroneXL reports the stakes are enormous: the company is contesting the decision at the Ninth Circuit case, where the company claims the ban will cost it $1.56 billion in 2026 alone.
DJI has separately pushed back on suggestions it is using shell brands to dodge the ban. As PetaPixel notes, the FCC has not accused the companies of violating the restrictions themselves, and instead the fines stem from their alleged failure to respond to official FCC inquiries. Still, the agency’s letters make clear it isn’t dropping the underlying question. TechRadar reports that FCC correspondence to one of the flagged firms stated the Commission “has a duty to investigate allegations involving potential statutory and regulatory violations and will not tolerate a failure to respond to investigative inquiries, particularly when an investigation may involve risks to national security.”
What This Means for Drone Pilots and Content Creators in NZ and AU
The immediate penalties are US-only and administrative, but the case is being watched closely by the wider creator and FPV racing community, many of whom depend on DJI’s Osmo Pocket, Action and Mavic lines for vlogging, streaming setups and competitive freestyle flying. None of this touches New Zealand or Australian retailers directly, since local DJI sales sit outside the FCC’s jurisdiction, but any supply-chain disruption to DJI’s US operations — or to grey-market clone brands riding on its firmware and RF hardware — could still ripple into global component sourcing and pricing for gimbal cameras and racing drones.
DroneXL’s coverage frames July 20 as the next flashpoint: if all eight companies stay silent past that deadline, the FCC is expected to escalate toward revoking their equipment authorizations, the exact power it granted itself in October 2025. For now, existing DJI and DJI-adjacent gear already in Kiwi and Australian hands isn’t affected, but the case underlines how tangled the drone and action-cam hardware market has become as regulators chase rebadged Chinese tech through a maze of Hong Kong shell entities and Amazon storefronts.
Join the Conversation