DJI,
the
world’s
largest
drone
company,
is
suing
to
avoid
being
seen
as
a
tool
of
the
Chinese
government.
On
Friday,
it
sued
the
US
Department
of
Defense
to
delete
its
name
from
a
list
of
“Chinese
Military
Companies,”
claiming
it
has
no
such
relationship
to
Chinese
authorities
and
has
suffered
unfairly
as
a
result
of
that
designation.
Since
DJI
was
added
to
that
list
in
2022,
the
company
claims,
it
has
“lost
business
deals,
been
stigmatized
as
a
national
security
threat,
and
been
banned
from
contracting
with
multiple
federal
government
agencies,”
and
that
its
employees
“now
suffer
frequent
and
pervasive
stigmatization”
and
are
“repeatedly
harassed
and
insulted
in
public
places.”
It
also
alleges
that
the
DoD
would
not
offer
the
company
any
explanation
for
its
designation
as
a
“Chinese
Military
Company”
until
DJI
threatened
a
lawsuit
this
September,
and
claims
that
when
the
DoD
finally
offered
up
its
reasoning,
it
was
filled
with
errors.
The
US
Department
of
Defense
didn’t
immediately
respond
to
a
request
for
comment.
You
can
read
DJI’s
full
argument
that
it’s
not
owned
or
controlled
by
the
Chinese
military
in
the
complaint
below:
Regardless
of
whether
the
DoD
has
enough
evidence
to
label
DJI
this
way,
it’s
far
from
the
only
US
government
entity
that’s
been
inclined
to
restrict
and
scrutinize
the
company
over
possible
ties
to
the
Chinese
government.
The
US
Army
asked
units
to
stop
using
DJI
drones
as
early
as
2017.
In
2019,
the
US
Interior
Department
grounded
its
fleet
of
DJI
drones
over
spying
risks.
In
2020,
the
US
Department
of
Commerce
added
DJI
to
its
Entity
List,
banning
US
companies
from
exporting
technology
to
DJI
after
it
“enabled
wide-scale
human
rights
abuses
within
China
through
abusive
genetic
collection
and
analysis
or
high-technology
surveillance.”
In
2021,
the
US
Treasury
added
DJI
to
its
list
of
Non-SDN
Chinese
Military
Industrial
Complex
Companies,
writing
that
it
had
provided
drones
to
the
Chinese
government
so
it
could
conduct
surveillance
of
Uyghurs,
and
suggesting
that
DJI
was
complicit
in
serious
human
rights
abuse
as
a
result.
Some
US
government
entities
were
restricted
from
buying
new
DJI
drones
following
these
various
actions.
And
this
past
week,
DJI
reported
that
some
of
its
drones
have
been
blocked
by
US
customs
using
the
Uyghur
Forced
Labor
Prevention
Act
as
justification.
In
its
defense,
DJI
has
repeatedly
claimed
it
isn’t
owned
or
controlled
by
the
Chinese
government,
that
it’s
had
“nothing
to
do
with
treatment
of
Uyghurs
in
Xinjiang,”
that
it’s
simply
selling
drones
that
may
be
used
for
various
purposes
that
are
out
of
its
control
afterwards,
that
many
of
those
purposes
have
helped
entities
(including
first
responders)
in
the
United
States,
and
that
independent
audits
by
consulting
firms
and
US
government
agencies
(including
the
DoD)
have
found
no
security
threats.
While
DJI
does
admit
in
the
complaint
that
two
Chinese
state-owned
investment
funds
did
make
minority
investments
in
the
company,
it
claims
the
Shanghai
Free
Trade
Zone
Equity
Fund
has
“less
than
1%
of
DJI’s
shares
and
less
than
0.1%
of
DJI’s
voting
rights,”
and
that
the
Chengtong
Fund
ended
its
investment
in
June
2023.
(DJI
says
just
four
people
control
99
percent
of
DJI
and
own
87
percent
of
its
shares
—
DJI
founder
and
early
employees
Frank
Wang,
Henry
Lu,
Swift
Xie,
and
Li
Zexiang.)
Congress
is
currently
considering
a
complete
import
ban
of
new
DJI
drones
and
other
equipment
in
the
United
States
by
suggesting
they
pose
a
natural
security
risk
—
though
that
ban
is
currently
on
ice.
While
the
House
of
Representatives
did
approve
it
after
it
was
tacked
onto
the
must-pass
National
Defense
Authorization
Act,
the
Senate’s
version
of
the
bill
doesn’t
currently
contain
the
ban
(though
it
might
still
add
it
back).
But
until
the
US
customs
hold-up,
which
DJI
is
suggesting
is
just
a
misunderstanding,
the
US
government
hadn’t
taken
any
actions
that
would
keep
stores
from
importing
drones,
consumers
from
buying
them,
or
individual
pilots
from
flying
them
in
the
United
States.
Even
should
Congress
ban
new
DJI
drones
from
being
sold,
the
proposed
text
of
those
bills
suggests
existing
owners
could
keep
flying
the
ones
they
own.
(Originally posted by Sean Hollister)
Comments