Odyssey Robot claimed its equipment was made and assembled in the U.S.; an FCC investigation found otherwis
The Federal Communications Commission has revoked equipment authorizations for a drone and remote controller from Odyssey Robot LLC. The agency concluded that the company made false statements about the equipment’s production and its status under FCC Covered List rules.
The August 11 Order of Revocation applies to FCC ID 2BSYT-FMAWZOD, identified as an uncrewed aircraft system, and FCC ID 2BSYT-YMAWZOD, a remote controller. The authorizations are revoked effective as of the date of the order.
The decision provides a look at how the FCC is enforcing restrictions that now apply to foreign-produced drones and critical components.
FCC Investigation Found Problems With U.S. Production Claims
The FCC added foreign-produced UAS and UAS critical components to its Covered List on December 22, 2025. Subsequent Department of War determinations removed certain categories from the list.
Equipment on the Covered List cannot receive FCC equipment authorization. Applicants must certify that equipment submitted for authorization is not prohibited covered equipment.
Odyssey received FCC certifications for its drone and controller on April 20, 2026. In applications submitted earlier in the year, Odyssey certified that the products were not covered equipment.
In supporting materials for the remote controller, Odyssey also represented that the product was developed, designed and manufactured by Odyssey in California and assembled by eTak Worldwide Corporation in Texas. The company stated that this information was “accurate and true to the best of our knowledge.”
That claim became central to the FCC’s investigation.
On June 5, security researcher Konrad Iturbe published allegations that Odyssey had made materially false attestations to the FCC. Five days later, the FCC Enforcement Bureau sent Odyssey a Letter of Inquiry. The agency requested equipment samples and information about Odyssey’s business structure, manufacturing locations, affiliations and compliance practices.
Odyssey did not respond. The FCC then sent a deficiency letter giving the company another seven days. Odyssey again did not respond.
Named Texas Assembler Denied Relationship With Odyssey
The FCC separately contacted eTak, the Texas company Odyssey had identified as assembling its devices.
eTak responded on July 13 and denied having a business or financial relationship with Odyssey. It also denied performing assembly work for the company.
“Based on eTak’s investigation to date, eTak has no affiliation, business relationship, contractual relationship, agency relationship, ownership interest, or other connection with Odyssey Robot LLC,” eTak told the FCC.
The company further stated that it “has not performed any assembly, and/or other services for Odyssey Robot LLC.”
On July 21, the FCC issued an Order to Show Cause giving Odyssey ten days to explain why its authorizations should not be revoked. Odyssey did not respond.
The FCC ultimately determined that the drone and controller were foreign-produced covered equipment and had been improperly authorized.
The agency cited Odyssey’s false statements about its U.S. assembler, the lack of records showing domestic production, foreign testing of the equipment and Odyssey’s failure to respond to FCC inquiries.
What Happens Next
The August 11 order revokes the two Odyssey equipment authorizations, effective immediately. Without valid FCC equipment authorization, the affected drone and remote controller cannot legally be marketed in the United States under those certifications. FCC rules define marketing broadly to include selling or leasing, offering or advertising a device for sale or lease, and importing, shipping or distributing it for those purposes.
The order does not direct existing owners to stop operating the equipment. It also does not impose a monetary penalty or announce additional enforcement action against Odyssey.
The decision comes as the FCC conducts separate investigations involving other drone companies and equipment that may be subject to Covered List restrictions.
In July, the FCC proposed $25,000 fines against eight companies for failing to respond to agency Letters of Inquiry. Those inquiries sought information related to the companies’ compliance with FCC equipment authorization and Covered List requirements.
Those proceedings remain separate from the Odyssey case. The proposed fines concerned failures to respond to FCC investigative requests and did not constitute final findings equivalent to those made against Odyssey.
The Odyssey decision does, however, demonstrate one possible outcome of an FCC investigation. When the agency determines that previously authorized equipment is covered equipment and that the authorization was obtained based on false statements, FCC rules provide a process for revoking that authorization.
Read more:
- DJI Warns FCC Proposal Could Restrict Widely Used Commercial Drones
- Military or Farm Tool? FCC’s Proposed Drone Categories Blur the Line
- FCC Targets Eight Drone Companies With Proposed Fines Over Unanswered National Security Inquiries
Miriam McNabb is the Editor-in-Chief of DRONELIFE and CEO of JobForDrones, a professional drone services marketplace, and a fascinated observer of the emerging drone industry and the regulatory environment for drones. Miriam has penned over 3,000 articles focused on the commercial drone space and is an international speaker and recognized figure in the industry. Miriam has a degree from the University of Chicago and over 20 years of experience in high tech sales and marketing for new technologies.
For drone industry consulting or writing, Email Miriam.
TWITTER:@spaldingbarker
Subscribe to DroneLife here.
Leave a Reply