A.P.: What you need to know about the DJI drone ban in the U.S.

[anotherlab]

If this is passed and flying DJI is illegal, the gov should reimburse owners for every one they own. That might change their minds. Voting them out even better.

There is no precedent for the US Government to reimburse consumers for products that were later banned.

To vote them out, you'll need an alternative. The CCP Drone law has bi-partisan support. The one time both sides come together on an issue and it's drones.

 

[franklinskite]

There is no precedent for the US Government to reimburse consumers for products that were later banned.

To vote them out, you'll need an alternative. The CCP Drone law has bi-partisan support. The one time both sides come together on an issue and it's drones.

Really?

Yes, there are precedents for the U.S. government reimbursing consumers for products that were later banned. This typically occurs in situations where a product is found to be hazardous to health or safety after it has been widely distributed and used. Here are a few notable examples:

1. Lead-Based Paint: In the 1970s, when the federal government banned the use of lead-based paint in residential properties and public buildings due to its health hazards, there were programs to assist in the removal of lead paint from homes, particularly those with children.
2. Firearms: In certain cases, the government has enacted buyback programs for firearms. For instance, after the passage of the Assault Weapons Ban in 1994, some state and local governments initiated buyback programs to reduce the number of banned weapons in circulation.
3. Toys and Children's Products: The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) frequently issues recalls and provides refunds or replacements for toys and children's products that are found to be unsafe. For example, the recall of toys containing lead paint or small parts that pose choking hazards often involves reimbursing consumers or offering replacements.
4. Defective Vehicles: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) oversees recalls of vehicles with safety defects. While these typically result in repairs rather than direct reimbursement, there are instances where consumers might receive compensation if the vehicle cannot be fixed.
5. Medications and Medical Devices: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oversees recalls of medications and medical devices. In cases where products are found to be harmful, manufacturers often provide refunds or cover the cost of replacements or medical treatments.

These precedents reflect the government's role in protecting public health and safety, and the mechanisms in place to mitigate the impact on consumers when products they have purchased are later found to be dangerous or defective.

 

[Meta4]

They can't turn off existing drones, but you would be operating them illegally.

That the government would ban flying existing DJI drones is a big assumption that many here have made.
Does the proposed bill say anything to support this?

DJI would not be able to get any new models approved and they would have a difficult time selling off any inventory.

That's the main potential impact I see.

 

[franklinskite]

Here are more notable examples of the U.S. government or related agencies reimbursing or compensating consumers for products that were later banned or recalled:

1. Asbestos: In the 1970s and 1980s, when the dangers of asbestos became widely recognized, the U.S. government banned its use in many products. Although there was no direct reimbursement program for consumers, extensive litigation led to the establishment of trust funds by companies that produced asbestos-containing products to compensate individuals who developed asbestos-related diseases.
2. Thalidomide: In the early 1960s, thalidomide was used as a sedative and to treat morning sickness in pregnant women. After it was discovered to cause severe birth defects, it was banned. The pharmaceutical company involved provided compensation to affected families, and in some cases, government programs assisted in providing support.
3. PIP Breast Implants: In 2010, French company Poly Implant Prothèse (PIP) was found to have used industrial-grade silicone in breast implants, leading to a global health scare. The FDA advised removal of these implants, and various compensation schemes were set up internationally, including legal settlements in the U.S.
4. Volkswagen Emissions Scandal: In 2015, Volkswagen was found to have installed software in diesel vehicles to cheat emissions tests. In the U.S., a major settlement required Volkswagen to buy back affected vehicles, provide compensation, and fund environmental remediation efforts.
5. Dietary Supplements: The FDA has banned various dietary supplements over the years due to safety concerns (e.g., ephedra). In some cases, consumers have been reimbursed through recalls or class-action lawsuits.
6. Tobacco Settlements: The 1998 Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement between the four largest U.S. tobacco companies and the attorneys general of 46 states led to significant funds being allocated for public health programs, smoking cessation, and compensating states for the healthcare costs of treating smoking-related illnesses. While not direct reimbursement to consumers, it represented a major compensation framework for the harm caused by tobacco products.
7. Pesticides and Herbicides: Certain chemicals, such as DDT and glyphosate (in specific contexts), have been banned or restricted due to health risks. In some cases, affected parties, like farmers, have received compensation through legal settlements or government programs designed to transition to safer alternatives.
8. Automobile Recalls: Beyond NHTSA-mandated recalls, manufacturers often provide compensation or vehicle buybacks for major safety defects. Notable examples include the Takata airbag recall, which led to significant compensation efforts for affected vehicle owners.

These examples highlight the range of circumstances under which the U.S. government, often in conjunction with manufacturers, takes action to protect consumers and provide remedies when products are found to be unsafe.

 

[mavic3usa]

Really?

Yes, there are precedents for the U.S. government reimbursing consumers for products that were later banned. This typically occurs in situations where a product is found to be hazardous to health or safety after it has been widely distributed and used. Here are a few notable examples:

1. Lead-Based Paint: In the 1970s, when the federal government banned the use of lead-based paint in residential properties and public buildings due to its health hazards, there were programs to assist in the removal of lead paint from homes, particularly those with children.
2. Firearms: In certain cases, the government has enacted buyback programs for firearms. For instance, after the passage of the Assault Weapons Ban in 1994, some state and local governments initiated buyback programs to reduce the number of banned weapons in circulation.
3. Toys and Children's Products: The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) frequently issues recalls and provides refunds or replacements for toys and children's products that are found to be unsafe. For example, the recall of toys containing lead paint or small parts that pose choking hazards often involves reimbursing consumers or offering replacements.
4. Defective Vehicles: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) oversees recalls of vehicles with safety defects. While these typically result in repairs rather than direct reimbursement, there are instances where consumers might receive compensation if the vehicle cannot be fixed.
5. Medications and Medical Devices: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oversees recalls of medications and medical devices. In cases where products are found to be harmful, manufacturers often provide refunds or cover the cost of replacements or medical treatments.

These precedents reflect the government's role in protecting public health and safety, and the mechanisms in place to mitigate the impact on consumers when products they have purchased are later found to be dangerous or defective.

Unfortunately the government will not reimburse you for contraband. I believe agencies and certain businesses above a certain threshold may be able to make a claim but ordinary citizens will be sol. A buyback program where you get a $50 red lobster gift card doesn't count.

 

[Capt KO]

DJI is already building and selling their own knockoffs in another country not under scrutiny and sold in the US. I have to believe there will be options to keep existing drones flying, like having firmware and flight apps made in the USA or a trading partner country. Similar to what's suggested for Tik Tok rather than selling it to a US company.

 

[franklinskite]

Unfortunately the government will not reimburse you for contraband. I believe agencies and certain businesses above a certain threshold may be able to make a claim but ordinary citizens will be sol. A buyback program where you get a $50 red lobster gift card doesn't count.

Banned products aren't 'contraband.' Fact is, and I don't mean to argue with you or belittle you, no one knows what may or can happen in this circumstance. If Congress gets a hard-on to ban all DJI operations in the U.S. we shouldn't doubt it can. In time of war, I'm sure there's contingencies for just about everything.

 

[mavic3usa]

Banned products aren't 'contraband.' Fact is, and I don't mean to argue with you or belittle you, no one knows what may or can happen in this circumstance. If Congress gets a hard-on to ban all DJI operations in the U.S. we shouldn't doubt it can. In time of war, I'm sure there's contingencies for just about everything.

Agreed we don't know what may or can happen and sure, it is likely all DJI operations in the US can be impacted by Congress. Most or many of us know this and realize this isn't a game but yeah, there are a few who don't believe it, don't care, not worried. Even if this bill does not succeed *this time* there's always a next time.

 

[mavic3usa]

Here are more notable examples of the U.S. government or related agencies reimbursing or compensating consumers for products that were later banned or recalled:

1. Asbestos: In the 1970s and 1980s, when the dangers of asbestos became widely recognized, the U.S. government banned its use in many products. Although there was no direct reimbursement program for consumers, extensive litigation led to the establishment of trust funds by companies that produced asbestos-containing products to compensate individuals who developed asbestos-related diseases.
2. Thalidomide: In the early 1960s, thalidomide was used as a sedative and to treat morning sickness in pregnant women. After it was discovered to cause severe birth defects, it was banned. The pharmaceutical company involved provided compensation to affected families, and in some cases, government programs assisted in providing support.
3. PIP Breast Implants: In 2010, French company Poly Implant Prothèse (PIP) was found to have used industrial-grade silicone in breast implants, leading to a global health scare. The FDA advised removal of these implants, and various compensation schemes were set up internationally, including legal settlements in the U.S.
4. Volkswagen Emissions Scandal: In 2015, Volkswagen was found to have installed software in diesel vehicles to cheat emissions tests. In the U.S., a major settlement required Volkswagen to buy back affected vehicles, provide compensation, and fund environmental remediation efforts.
5. Dietary Supplements: The FDA has banned various dietary supplements over the years due to safety concerns (e.g., ephedra). In some cases, consumers have been reimbursed through recalls or class-action lawsuits.
6. Tobacco Settlements: The 1998 Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement between the four largest U.S. tobacco companies and the attorneys general of 46 states led to significant funds being allocated for public health programs, smoking cessation, and compensating states for the healthcare costs of treating smoking-related illnesses. While not direct reimbursement to consumers, it represented a major compensation framework for the harm caused by tobacco products.
7. Pesticides and Herbicides: Certain chemicals, such as DDT and glyphosate (in specific contexts), have been banned or restricted due to health risks. In some cases, affected parties, like farmers, have received compensation through legal settlements or government programs designed to transition to safer alternatives.
8. Automobile Recalls: Beyond NHTSA-mandated recalls, manufacturers often provide compensation or vehicle buybacks for major safety defects. Notable examples include the Takata airbag recall, which led to significant compensation efforts for affected vehicle owners.

These examples highlight the range of circumstances under which the U.S. government, often in conjunction with manufacturers, takes action to protect consumers and provide remedies when products are found to be unsafe.

Thanks for all the examples, if you could point to any one of them specifically, pretty sure it would be easy to discover why it's not applicable to this DJI ban. In any case, if the US government sues DJI for damages and wins, I agree yes, we all could get a payout.

If you have an example of where a perfectly good product that hasn't hurt or injured anyone but the government decides it's not suitable for the US and bans it and then sues the manufacturer on behalf of the consumers to get a [meaningful] payout then I think more people here could rest a little easier (not).

 

[moldorf]

I asked this earlier in this thread and it wasn't answered:

is there a legitimate reason DJI drones are in the crosshairs, but Autel drone's aren't? Or are they next on the list?

 

[mavic3usa]

I asked this earlier in this thread and it wasn't answered:

is there a legitimate reason DJI drones are in the crosshairs, but Autel drone's aren't? Or are they next on the list?

I dont know if you can call it "legitimate" but DJI is in the crosshairs because they are the biggest and the fastest and the smartest and the strongest and Autel has all but folded up shop and no longer has any interest in anything drone significant. If Autel loses the US, they would be completely done if not already. If these drone makers were Korean or Japanese or Taiwanese, we wouldn't be talking about any of this.

 

[anotherlab]

Really?

Yes, there are precedents for the U.S. government reimbursing consumers for products that were later banned. This typically occurs in situations where a product is found to be hazardous to health or safety after it has been widely distributed and used. Here are a few notable examples:

1. Lead-Based Paint: In the 1970s, when the federal government banned the use of lead-based paint in residential properties and public buildings due to its health hazards, there were programs to assist in the removal of lead paint from homes, particularly those with children.
2. Firearms: In certain cases, the government has enacted buyback programs for firearms. For instance, after the passage of the Assault Weapons Ban in 1994, some state and local governments initiated buyback programs to reduce the number of banned weapons in circulation.
3. Toys and Children's Products: The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) frequently issues recalls and provides refunds or replacements for toys and children's products that are found to be unsafe. For example, the recall of toys containing lead paint or small parts that pose choking hazards often involves reimbursing consumers or offering replacements.
4. Defective Vehicles: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) oversees recalls of vehicles with safety defects. While these typically result in repairs rather than direct reimbursement, there are instances where consumers might receive compensation if the vehicle cannot be fixed.
5. Medications and Medical Devices: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oversees recalls of medications and medical devices. In cases where products are found to be harmful, manufacturers often provide refunds or cover the cost of replacements or medical treatments.

These precedents reflect the government's role in protecting public health and safety, and the mechanisms in place to mitigate the impact on consumers when products they have purchased are later found to be dangerous or defective.

The various programs to remediate lead products in homes are to address health issues. Not being able to use a DJI drone will cause long-term health concerns.

Firearm buybacks are voluntary programs to remove weapons from the streets. It's not the same thing as a ban.

There is a difference between a product recall and a product ban. The products are being recalled because they are faulty. The DJI products are not faulty, they are just being banned for political, not technical reasons.

Even if I agree with your view, I don't see the government buying back drones.

 

[TheRock]

This from PetaPixel:

DJI Seems to Believe That It Is Very Possible Its Drones Will Be Banned

DJI may find itself in the same boat as TikTok.

petapixel.com

 

[RCFlyer]

How would the government restrict or ground DJI drones? Can gps satellites restrict what devices read positioning?
Is it prudent to purchase a DJI drone now or hold off until this gets settled?

 

[franklinskite]

How would the government restrict or ground DJI drones? Can gps satellites restrict what devices read positioning?
Is it prudent to purchase a DJI drone now or hold off until this gets settled?

The core of the problem here is that nobody knows what’s possible or what will happen. This is totally uncharted territory. Anyone who tells you he knows what will happen or what it means for your quad is full of bs. At the very least, we should be asking for clarity from DJI or the regulators about what all this may mean for the average owner.

I fly my m2p with a phone and an app. These are easy to grandfather out. Some say a controller may provide assurance that your drone won’t be grounded or bricked. I’m not so sure. In any event, I’m not so keen on shelling out $700 for a smart controller in this climate of uncertainty. The only thing safe to say is you puts your money down and you takes your chances.

 

[mavic3usa]

The core of the problem here is that nobody knows what’s possible or what will happen. This is totally uncharted territory. Anyone who tells you he knows what will happen or what it means for your quad is full of bs. At the very least, we should be asking for clarity from DJI or the regulators about what all this may mean for the average owner.

I fly my m2p with a phone and an app. These are easy to grandfather out. Some say a controller may provide assurance that your drone won’t be grounded or bricked. I’m not so sure. In any event, I’m not so keen on shelling out $700 for a smart controller in this climate of uncertainty. The only thing safe to say is you puts your money down and you takes your chances.

This post confirms that it is possible even the thought or mention of a potential ban could have an adverse impact on the drone community in terms of adoption, sales, and recreational activity. Indeed none of us know for sure and it is this uncertainty that increases the risk for some to the point where they won't buy a DJI until this is put to bed and as we know, this will never be put to bed.

 

[franklinskite]

This post confirms that it is possible even the thought or mention of a potential ban could have an adverse impact on the drone community in terms of adoption, sales, and recreational activity. Indeed none of us know for sure and it is this uncertainty that increases the risk for some to the point where they won't buy a DJI until this is put to bed and as we know, this will never be put to bed.

Exactly. Well said.

 

[RCFlyer]

The core of the problem here is that nobody knows what’s possible or what will happen. This is totally uncharted territory. Anyone who tells you he knows what will happen or what it means for your quad is full of bs. At the very least, we should be asking for clarity from DJI or the regulators about what all this may mean for the average owner.

I fly my m2p with a phone and an app. These are easy to grandfather out. Some say a controller may provide assurance that your drone won’t be grounded or bricked. I’m not so sure. In any event, I’m not so keen on shelling out $700 for a smart controller in this climate of uncertainty. The only thing safe to say is you puts your money down and you takes your chances.

I fly with an iPad or iPhone and no smart controller. Is that what you mean?
I know it's rhetorical but why can't the technology determine what the chips inside are doing as far as sending data???

 

[franklinskite]

I fly with an iPad or iPhone and no smart controller. Is that what you mean?
I know it's rhetorical but why can't the technology determine what the chips inside are doing as far as sending data???

Yes, that’s what I mean. I use the Go 4 app, like many others do.

You’re asking a good question. I’m not an app designer at DJI. Probably no one on this forum is. So who knows what’s possible?

I do know I regularly get a notice that many of my apps no longer run or work and I must update. Banking apps, even my grocery store app must be updated regularly. It’s a PITA. Often that means updating my iOS, which I don’t like to do for various reasons. This is another of those reasons.

I have no doubt that Congress can impose a totally draconian ban on DJI, decreeing by law that app stores no longer carry the app. Congress, like the U.S. Supreme Court, can and does do whatever it dingdong wants to do. These articles are talking about Congress contemplating a total ban of DJI on all American communications infrastructure. Is that possible? I bet it is. All we hear from DJI is in this article from yesterday:

'If DJI’s FCC authorizations are revoked, U.S. operators would no longer be able to access new DJI drones, and their existing drone fleets may even need to be grounded.'

We see this regularly with the E.U. Apple is forced to make changes or risk a ban in Europe. So Apple makes changes to its App Store, etc.

The question is, can you one day wake up and be greeted with a message from your phone app or controller saying that your drone is not permitted take off, and to contact your congressmen? I certainly believe that is possible. If my grocery store app can be boinxed, I’m sure a drone app can be killed too. Will it happen? Who knows?

DJI Seems to Believe That It Is Very Possible Its Drones Will Be Banned

DJI may find itself in the same boat as TikTok.

petapixel.com

 

[anotherlab]

How would the government restrict or ground DJI drones?

Short of forcing DJI to brick the devices, Congress can't ground a drone. They can prevent DJI from being able to certify new products for FCC operation. And they can create a situation where someone calls LEO while you are flying and you could be charged.

Can gps satellites restrict what devices read positioning?

GPS satellites just broadcast a signal, they can't restrict who picks up that signal.

Is it prudent to purchase a DJI drone now or hold off until this gets settled?

If you want to fly one now, get one now. The law has not yet been passed in Congress, it made it out of committee. Once Congress passes it, it goes to the Senate, and then to the President to be signed. I would expect that some group would file a challenge and seek an injunction to prevent the enforcement of the ruling until it has been settled by the courts.