Lost another drone

[Chip]

Coincidentally, It looks like DJI settled the case four days ago.

 

[Chip]

DJI lost on jurisdiction and forced arbitration and then folded. But DJI was facing a blinded boy with potentially millions in damages. They were just banned selling in the USA and this case was set for jury trial in Texas. The place where everything is bigger including personal injury verdicts.

 

[jwilson]

And I hope they keep doing so.
Why should we, honest buyers of DJI stuff who take good care of their equipment eventually pay for your repeated carelessness?
You took an unreasonable risk and lost, too bad. Want another drone? Buy another.

This has to be a troll post, at least I hope so.

I am buying it. I'm not asking to get it for free. I'm sure you've never crashed a drone. It was not an unreasonable risk. It was a mistake. I've been flying my Mini 3 pro low over the surf with no problems.

 

[jwilson]

Relying on AI legal advice is about as advisable as believing everything your hear from customer service reps who are working off scripts. Forget the lawsuit and go enjoy your vacation.

It can't hurt to inquire. I emailed an attorney. It was free.

 

[jwilson]

Sure you can. But it would be very difficult, time consuming, and massively expensive for a very small dispute that you could lose a dozen different ways. There is a case that shows how aggressively DJI defends lawsuits and will throw out every possible argument to derail you.

For example, look at Bishop et al v. SZ DJI Technology Co., LTD., a 2025 case filed in federal court against DJI in Texas. The case summary is as follows:

When operating the Subject Drone, it malfunctioned and flew into A.B.’s face, causing serious injuries to his eye, face, and shoulder. A.B. has had seven surgeries on his right eye since the incident and is now legally blind in that eye. This lawsuit ensued. Among other causes of action, the Bishops assert claims against the DJI Defendants for negligence and gross negligence, and for product liability grounded in alleged design, manufacturing, and marketing defects.

DJI argued they sell drones through third parties and they have no contact or nexus with Texas so court had no jurisdiction over them. A court may exercise jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only when a “sufficient nexus exists between the defendant’s contacts with the forum and the cause of action."

The court blew that one out holding that DJI purposefully availed themselves of the Texas drone market, and their claims relate to the malfunction of a DJI drone in Texas, which caused the injuries to A.B. that are the subject of the action.

The court said "it strains credulity for the DJI Defendants to operate a website touting the availability of their drone products at hundreds of retail locations in Texas and yet claim that they could not expect or foresee that such products might be sold or used in Texas. That dog won’t hunt." (I know, only in Texas, right)?

The court said the plaintiff made a prima facie case that the DJI Defendants delivered their products into the stream of commerce with the reasonable expectation that a substantial number of those products would be sold to Texas consumers. That satisfies the purposeful-availment requirement under the stream-of-commerce theory.

So plaintiff dodged that motion to dismiss. But DJI had another defense which is a mandatory arbitration clause in its terms of use that reads:

In the interest of resolving disputes between you and DJI in the most expedient and cost effective manner, you and DJI agree that every dispute arising in connection with these Terms will be resolved by binding arbitration. This agreement to arbitrate disputes includes all claims arising out of or relating to any aspect of these Terms, whether based in contract, tort, statute, fraud, misrepresentation, or any other legal theory, and regardless of whether a claim arises during or after the termination of these Terms.

The clause even tells you who will be the arbtitrator:

Any arbitration between you and DJI will be settled under the Federal Arbitration Act, and governed by the Commercial Dispute Resolution Procedures and the Supplementary Procedures for Consumer Related Disputes (collectively, “AAA Rules”) of the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”), as modified by these Terms, and will be administered by the AAA. The AAA Rules and filing forms are available online at www.adr.org, by calling the AAA at 1-800-778-7879, or by contacting DJI.

Arbitrations can be much cheaper and quicker than court but not if you have to pay the private arbitator or pay the other side's fees if you lose.

The plaintiff in the Texas case got out of arbitration and was allowed to continue in federal court becasue DJI used a "click wrap" agreement and the injured party was under 18.

The court ruling explaining the jurisdiction issue can be found at:

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/texas/txedce/4:2024cv00268/228932/68/

Thanks for the information. Don't Americans sue foreign automobile manufacturers all the time when they're injured by a defective car? I'm not a lawyer, so I going to listen to the experts. I don't really expect to go to court but I'm just exploring my options. If I had know DJI was going to be like this, I could of bought a new drone from a local e-commerce place and had it by now.

 

[MS Coast]

It can't hurt to inquire. I emailed an attorney. It was free.

The basis for your lawsuit would be that they didn't follow up on email and chat sessions? Did your email attorney see that as an actionable cause?

 

[Droning on and on...]

The basis for your lawsuit would be that they didn't follow up on email and chat sessions? Did your email attorney see that as an actionable cause?

And what were the damages? What compensation to make the plaintiff whole?

I can see it now: Judge orders DJI to answer the email

 

[Chip]

Thanks for the information. Don't Americans sue foreign automobile manufacturers all the time when they're injured by a defective car?

Yes, they do BUT those cases generally involve death or serious injury involving millions of dollars in potential damages which are tied to a provable defect. Massive potential damages are necessary to justify the risk of spending years and millions in time and expert fees.

Auto manufacturers are also big targets especially if they have headquarters and assets in the USA which makes jurisdiction, service of process, discovery and judgment collection easier.

You may recall a few years ago when vape pens using batteries made and packaged in China began spontaneouly combusting in peoples pockets causing some nasty injuries. In some cases, the consumers failed to heed warnings not to keep batteries and devices in pockets with coins or anything metallic.

But some spontaneously combusted due to provable manufacturing defects. The source of the batterries could often be traced to China, which meant they had to be served in China in accordance with the Hague Convention which requires lots of time and money.

Ironically, the DJI "click wrap" agreement with the arbitration clause is one way to avoid court altogether and it may be initiated by a simple letter to the company or possibly AAA. I am doubtful however that is worth your time and trouble, however, given the circumstances.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[YorksPhotos]

It can't hurt to inquire. I emailed an attorney. It was free.

If the attorney doesn't respond you can sue him.

 

[jwilson]

The basis for your lawsuit would be that they didn't follow up on email and chat sessions? Did your email attorney see that as an actionable cause?

I have gotten no response from the attorney but it's Sunday. I wouldn't be surprised if I didn't get a response. This is a small case to them. My lawsuit would be that they kept saying they would do things that they never did. Unfortunately, I don't have copies of most of the chat and I didn't record the phone call. So all I really have is the emails. I think a jury would be sympathetic, but who knows if it would ever get that far.

 

[jwilson]

Yes, they do BUT those cases generally involve death or serious injury involving millions of dollars in potential damages which are tied to a provable defect. Massive potential damages are necessary to justify the risk of spending years and millions in time and expert fees.

Auto manufacturers are also big targets especially if they have headquarters and assets in the USA which makes jurisdiction, service of process, discovery and judgment collection easier.

You may recall a few years ago when vape pens using batteries made and packaged in China began spontaneouly combusting in peoples pockets causing some nasty injuries. In some cases, the consumers failed to heed warnings not to keep batteries and devices in pockets with coins or anything metallic.

But some spontaneously combusted due to provable manufacturing defects. The source of the batterries could often be traced to China, which meant they had to be served in China in accordance with the Hague Convention which requires lots of time and money.

Ironically, the DJI "click wrap" agreement with the arbitration clause is one way to avoid court altogether and it may be initiated by a simple letter to the company or possibly AAA. I am doubtful however that is worth your time and trouble, however, given the circumstances.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Another thing is suing a company that's in a country with a dictator, like, China or Russia, is a whole nother ball game. Even if you won, you probably couldn't get them to pay. Many American win civil suits but never get paid.

 

[Droning on and on...]

My lawsuit would be that they kept saying they would do things that they never did. Unfortunately, I don't have copies of most of the chat and I didn't record the phone call. So all I really have is the emails. I think a jury would be sympathetic, but who knows if it would ever get that far.

The thing missing here is real damages on your part, that can be made whole by a court.

DJI may have hurt your feelings by "saying they would do things they never did", but they have no general obligation to. They can behave this way, and you have not incurred any actionable "damage".

Unless you have some contractual agreement with DJI that they are obligated to return phone calls and emails as some employee has promised, you have no cause of action, and this amounts to nothing more than a silly tantrum.