FCC Targets Eight Drone Companies With Proposed Fines Over Unanswered National Security Inquiries

Enforcement Bureau says companies failed to respond to investigations involving equipment added to the FCC Covered List

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has proposed $25,000 forfeitures against eight drone-related companies after they allegedly failed to respond to Enforcement Bureau investigations examining whether they marketed equipment subject to U.S. national security restrictions.

The proposed forfeitures, announced July 10, are directed at 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. In each case, the FCC alleges the company failed to respond to a Letter of Inquiry (LOI) requesting information about products that may have been marketed in the United States after additions to the FCC Covered List.

According to reporting by PetaPixel and The Verge, the companies have been linked by independent researchers to the sale of products believed to incorporate or rebrand DJI technology. However, it is important to note that the FCC’s enforcement actions do not make that determination. Instead, the Notices of Apparent Liability focus on the companies’ alleged failure to respond to official investigative requests.

The FCC’s investigation follows its December 22, 2025 decision to expand the Covered List to include certain foreign-produced uncrewed aircraft systems and critical drone components identified through a national security determination. The Enforcement Bureau sought information from the companies to determine whether they had directly or indirectly marketed covered radiofrequency equipment in the United States.

In the Cogito Tech notice, which is representative of the enforcement actions, the FCC states that it requested information about “whether the Company has indirectly or directly marketed within the United States any radiofrequency (RF) equipment that was added to the Covered List on December 22, 2025.” The agency alleges that Cogito failed to respond both to the original Letter of Inquiry and to a subsequent deficiency letter directing the company to provide the requested information.

The FCC emphasizes that the proposed forfeitures are based on failure to comply with Commission orders rather than any finding that the companies violated the Covered List itself. Under longstanding Commission practice, an LOI constitutes an agency order, and failure to respond can itself result in enforcement action.

The Cogito notice also underscores why the agency considers these investigations significant.

“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.”

According to the notice, the FCC’s investigation was informed in part by publicly available research. The agency cites reporting by DroneXL describing work by security researcher Konrad Iturbe, whose GitHub project analyzed communications protocols used by various drone products. The FCC says that research contributed to opening its investigation into Cogito.

Investigative history. In September 2025, the website, DroneXL, published an article[1] that linked to a GitHub repository in which security researcher Konrad Iturbe developed an automated system to detect hardware copies of certain communications and video surveillance equipment listed in Section 1709 of the FY25 NDAA—equipment that would become covered communications equipment in December when the Commission updated the Covered List.[2]  Iturbe’s system searched for devices that used a unique proprietary communication protocol and identified that Cogito’s devices incorporated the same unique proprietary protocol used in the now-covered equipment.[3]

[1] DroneXL, DJI Shell Game Exposed: Security Bot Catches DJI’s Fikaxo Proxy Before Congressional Deadline (Sept. 26, 2025), https://dronexl.co/2025/09/26/dji-shell-game-exposed-fikaxo-proxy/ (last visited June 18, 2026); see also DroneXL, Spatial Hover Emerges as Newest DJI Shell Company After Fikaxo Drone Mysteriously Migrates Between Websites, https://dronexl.co/2025/10/03/spatial-hover-dji-shell-company-after-fikaxo-drone/ (last visited June 18, 2026).

[2] GitHub, KonradIT / dji-front-companies, https://github.com/KonradIT/dji-front-companies (last visited June 18, 2026).  See also UAS December Public Notice.

Each Notice of Apparent Liability proposes a $25,000 forfeiture and directs the recipient to respond to the original Letter of Inquiry. The companies may pay the proposed forfeiture or seek its reduction or cancellation, and the FCC warns that continued failure to respond could result in additional enforcement action.

Read more:

• Not Just DJI: How the FCC’s Foreign Drone Rule Changes the Market
• Is U.S. Manufacturing the Answer? SKYROVER Signals a New Strategy as FCC Pressure Mounts
• FCC Updates Covered List, Introduces First Conditional Approvals for Drone Systems