The Affiliation for Uncrewed Car Programs Worldwide (AUVSI) has launched a fierce assault on California‘s Meeting Invoice 1160 (AB 1160), claiming it threatens nationwide safety by channeling state tax {dollars} to Chinese language navy corporations by way of drone purchases. In a letter (see under) dated April 1, 2025, addressed to Meeting Public Security Committee Chair Nick Shultz, AUVSI’s Affiliate Vice President and Counsel for Regulatory Affairs, Scott Shtofman, calls the invoice a “wolf in sheep’s clothes” that “creates new and ongoing loopholes” for drones from “Chinese language navy corporations.” Their rhetoric is daring, however their proof is flimsy—constructed on contested labels, obscure warnings, and a obvious disregard for the invoice’s precise intent. This DroneXL article dismantles AUVSI’s place, revealing a lobbying effort dressed up as concern, extra about defending U.S. drone makers than securing California’s skies or saving individuals’s lives.
Decoding AB 1160: What It Actually Says
The Invoice’s Core Provisions
AB 1160, authored by Meeting Member Wilson and amended on March 24, 2025, regulates drone purchases by California legislation enforcement companies. It’s about unmanned, remotely piloted automobiles used for public security. Beginning January 1, 2027, the invoice prohibits companies from shopping for drones except they meet one in all two situations:
- Information Assortment Management: The drone has an choice to disable any knowledge assortment applications not important to its operate.
- U.S. Information Storage: All collected knowledge (e.g., video, pictures) is saved with an American firm.
Drones purchased earlier than 2027 are exempt, and the invoice builds on AB 481 (2021), which mandates public oversight of navy tools like drones. Its focus is evident: Information Safety, not the drones’ nation of origin. China, DJI, or any producer goes unmentioned—AB 1160 is agnostic about the place the {hardware} comes from.
AUVSI’s Spin
AUVSI’s letter frames AB 1160 as a Computer virus, alleging it “would allow drones manufactured by Chinese language navy corporations” to infiltrate California companies. They level to the U.S. Division of Protection’s (DoD) designation of such corporations—implicitly DJI—whereas warning of “new loopholes” that undermine safety. However the invoice’s textual content contradicts this. It doesn’t carve out exceptions for Chinese language drones; it units common knowledge requirements. AUVSI’s “loophole” declare assumes these situations can’t be met by international producers, but they provide no proof. Their wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing metaphor is dramatic however indifferent from the invoice’s plain language.
READ MORE: The Reality Uncovered: AUVSI’s Actual Stance on DJI Drone Ban
Breaking Down AUVSI’s Arguments
1. The “Chinese language Army Firm” Label
AUVSI’s Declare: “AB 1160 would allow drones manufactured by Chinese language navy corporations, as designated by the U.S. Division of Protection, to be bought by California state and native entities.”
The Actuality: AUVSI hinges its argument on the DoD’s October 2022 designation of DJI as a “Chinese language navy firm” underneath Part 1260H of the Nationwide Protection Authorization Act. However that label is underneath hearth. DJI sued the DoD in 2024, calling the choice “illegal” and arguing it lacks proof of navy ties. DJI claims it’s a civilian tech agency—by no means designing navy gear—and factors to its suspension of gross sales in Russia and Ukraine as proof of neutrality. The DoD cites China’s military-civil fusion coverage, however no public knowledge hyperlinks DJI to the Individuals’s Liberation Military. AUVSI treats this disputed tag as gospel, ignoring the continued authorized battle. Distinction this with Huawei, the place U.S. bans relaxation on documented espionage considerations—DJI’s case lacks that weight.
2. Tax {Dollars} to the Enemy
AUVSI’s Declare: “Sending Californian tax {dollars} to the Chinese language navy is a place we can’t and won’t assist.”
The Actuality: That is alarmist hyperbole. AB 1160 doesn’t mandate shopping for Chinese language drones—it units knowledge safety guidelines any drone should meet. If a DJI drone complies (e.g., with native knowledge mode or U.S. storage), it’s eligible, however so is any American-made drone. California companies already use DJI for price and efficiency—suppose Wildfire mapping or rescues—not navy handouts. AUVSI offers no figures: no estimate of tax {dollars} at stake, no proof DJI funnels money to Beijing’s navy. In 2023, U.S. imports from China totaled $427 billion (U.S. Census Bureau)—DJI’s slice is trivial. AUVSI’s outrage feels performative when cranes and telephones from China dwarf drone spending.
3. “Effectively-Understood” Dangers
AUVSI’s Declare: “The dangers of working international drones from adversarial nations and Chinese language navy corporations should not new and are very properly understood.”
The Actuality: What dangers? AUVSI doesn’t specify—cyberattacks? Information leaks? They lean on a 2017 Military memo flagging DJI “vulnerabilities,” however a 2021 Pentagon audit discovered no onerous proof of malice. Booz Allen Hamilton’s 2019 exams additionally cleared DJI’s knowledge practices. The Division of the Inside even developed particular “Authorities Version” drones in partnership with Chinese language drone maker DJI. “Effectively-understood” sounds authoritative, however with out particulars, it’s empty. In the meantime, 80% of U.S. port cranes are Chinese language-made (American Affiliation of Port Authorities), dealing with essential logistics knowledge. AUVSI’s drone fixation seems to be arbitrary subsequent to those giants.
4. Nationwide Safety Loopholes
AUVSI’s Declare: “Congress is aware of that such actions [software mitigations or local-only mode] wouldn’t deal with the nationwide safety considerations.”
The Actuality: AUVSI nods to the 2023 American Safety Drone Act, which bans federal use of Chinese language drones, however skips the superb print: Congress permits waivers for essential wants. Why? As a result of DJI’s tech usually beats U.S. alternate options in emergencies. The FAA and DHS greenlight DJI for First Responders with strict protocols—offline modes, U.S. software program—suggesting mitigations work. AUVSI dismisses these fixes with out explaining why they fail. If the menace have been absolute, waivers wouldn’t exist. Their argument unravels underneath scrutiny.
5. Information Over Lives
AUVSI’s Declare: “These dangers are, in fact, secondary to the specter of the state’s knowledge.”
The Actuality: This flips priorities the other way up. AUVSI downplays drones’ position in saving lives—suppose thermal imaging for wildfires—whereas hyping undefined “knowledge threats.” What knowledge? Flight paths? Budgets? They don’t say. DJI’s Matrice 4T ($8,878) gives 49-minute flights, and superior sensors; Skydio’s X2 ($10,999) lags at 35 minutes. For cash-strapped companies, DJI’s edge is important. AUVSI’s keen to sacrifice that for hypothetical dangers, displaying their true colours.
AUVSI’s Motives: Lobbying, Not Safety
Inexperienced sUAS and Market Safety
AUVSI’s “Partnership for Drone Competitiveness” pushes Inexperienced sUAS—U.S.-made drones echoing the DoD’s Blue sUAS listing. Each promise “safe” choices, however many use Chinese language components (e.g., Skydio batteries are made in China). Their pitch is American jobs, but prices soar: Blue sUAS drones hit $15,000 versus DJI’s $5,000 friends (Drone Business Insights). AUVSI’s members—like Skydio—profit from bans, not taxpayers or first responders. This isn’t safety; it’s a gross sales pitch.
A Historical past of Hype
AUVSI’s playbook is worn. In 2020, they cheered DJI’s preliminary ban, citing “knowledge dangers” with no proof—Forbes received anecdotes, not audits. The 2023 Drone Act push repeated the sample: loud warnings, silent on proof. They’re a commerce group, not a watchdog.
The Stakes: Price, Functionality, and Readability
Financial Affect
Banning Chinese language drones spikes prices. A Skydio X10 ($20,000) gives 40 minutes of flight; DJI’s M350 RTK ($14,000) delivers 55 with higher payload choices. For companies juggling budgets, the mathematics issues. AUVSI’s imaginative and prescient means pricier, weaker instruments—doubtlessly lethal trade-offs.
READ MORE: Blue sUAS Issues and Florida DMS Secretary Accused of Pimping for Skydio
Coverage Muddle
AB 1160’s knowledge focus matches federal developments—FAA guidelines prioritize security, not origin. AUVSI’s ban obsession clashes with sensible exemptions (e.g., FEMA’s DJI use). If mitigations suffice federally, why not right here? Their stance sows confusion, not options.
The Verdict: AUVSI’s Case Collapses
AUVSI’s assault on AB 1160 is a home of playing cards—shaky labels, baseless fears, and a transparent agenda. They model DJI a navy pawn with out proof, cry knowledge doom whereas ignoring greater threats, and sideline public security for revenue. California lawmakers ought to see by this: demand specifics—dates, breaches, {dollars}—or dismiss AUVSI’s noise. First responders want dependable drones, not lobbying dogma.
DroneXL’s Stance
DJI’s 70% U.S. market share displays high quality, not conspiracy. AUVSI’s scare techniques crumble with out proof. California ought to prioritize details—and lives—over worry.
AUVSI’s Letter
Right here’s the textual content letter from AUVSI’s Scott Shtofman:
April 1, 2025
The Honorable Nick Shultz, Chair
Meeting Committee on Public Security
1020 N Avenue, Room 111
Sacramento, CA 95814RE: AB 1160 (Wilson): Army Gear – Oppose
Chair Shultz,
My identify is Scott Shtofman, and I’m the Affiliate Vice President and Counsel for Regulatory Affairs on the Affiliation for Uncrewed Car Programs Worldwide (AUVSI). AUVSI is the world’s largest nonprofit group devoted to the development of uncrewed techniques, autonomy, and robotics. Our affiliation represents companies and leaders from greater than 60 Nations throughout trade, authorities, and academia within the protection, civil and industrial sectors.
AUVSI’s Partnership for Drone Competitiveness is a coalition of U.S. and Allied drone and drone element producers and enterprise customers who’re dedicated to strengthening the U.S. drone trade. The Partnership is constructed on a easy premise: that stronger U.S. management within the drone trade is healthier for everybody. You may learn extra in regards to the Partnership in AUVSI’s Whitepaper printed on our web site.
We write to precise our robust opposition to AB 1160 (Wilson), as amended. We now have robust considerations over permitting using adversary drones with software program mitigations. Particularly, AB 1160 would create new and ongoing loopholes by enabling drones manufactured by Chinese language navy corporations, as designated by the U.S. Division of Protection, to be bought by California state and native entities. Sending Californian tax {dollars} to the Chinese language navy is a place we can’t and won’t assist. To place it merely, the invoice is a wolf in sheep’s clothes. By pretending to safeguard, the invoice would offer a backdoor for our adversaries. California’s legislation ought to try to guard the state’s cybersecurity and knowledge. The language on this invoice would take California backwards.
The dangers of working international drones from adversarial nations and Chinese language navy corporations should not new and are very properly understood. In 2017, the U.S. navy started eradicating these techniques from their Arsenal. In 2020, Congress codified the ban on Chinese language drones for the U.S. navy. In 2023, Congress enacted the American Safety Drone Act extending the ban to your entire federal authorities. Congress continued this work in 2024 and enacted language which established a year-long transitional interval that can start prohibiting Chinese language navy drone producers from promoting new merchandise within the United States. The U.S. Congress has not supplied a carve out for adversarial techniques with American software program or these operated in native solely mode. Congress is aware of that such actions wouldn’t deal with the nationwide safety considerations.
Because the Federal Authorities continues to enact insurance policies prohibiting using sure foreign-made drones, states that fail to adjust to these laws might discover themselves ineligible for federal grants and contracts associated to drone operations. These dangers are, in fact, secondary to the specter of the state’s knowledge. We respectfully oppose the provisions in AB 1160 and ask you to do the identical.
Respectfully,
Scott Shtofman
Scott Shtofman
AUVSI
AVP & Counsel, Regulatory Affairs
Uncover extra from DroneXL.co
Subscribe to get the most recent posts despatched to your e-mail.
