FCC Launches First National Security Drone Revocation Proceeding, Separately Targets Test Lab

This alert highlights two significant and timely national security enforcement actions at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). For the first time, the agency launched a proceeding to revoke a drone company’s equipment authorizations over false U.S. production claims. It also opened another proceeding to withdraw a test lab’s FCC recognition following allegations that it submitted falsified test reports. The proceedings are the latest in the FCC’s broader push to tighten enforcement around national security risks, and they carry implications for companies certifying Covered List compliance and for those whose equipment authorizations relied on the affected test lab.

Order to show cause

On July 21, the FCC released an Order to Show Cause (Order) against Odyssey Robot LLC (Odyssey) over allegedly false claims that its products were manufactured and assembled in the United States and thus not covered equipment. Specifically, the Odyssey Order explained:

• Odyssey obtained equipment authorizations for a drone and remote controller in early 2026 by certifying that its equipment was not “covered” foreign-produced equipment, and by representing that its products were developed, designed, and manufactured in California and assembled by eTak Worldwide Corporation (eTak) in Texas. Test reports submitted with the applications showed testing was conducted in China.
• Following a June 5, 2026, report alleging that Odyssey’s attestations were false, the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau sent Letters of Inquiry (LOIs) to Odyssey and eTak. Odyssey did not respond to either the LOI or a subsequent deficiency letter. eTak responded, denying any business or financial relationship with Odyssey and denying that it had performed any assembly work for the company.
• Based on these findings, the FCC’s Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) and Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau tentatively determined that Odyssey’s equipment is covered equipment authorized on the basis of false statements that the equipment was neither on the Covered List nor produced in a foreign country.

Odyssey must file a response by July 31 explaining why the FCC should not revoke its authorizations.

Order instituting proceeding to withdraw test lab recognition

Also on July 21, the FCC released an Order Instituting Proceeding to Withdraw Recognition as an Accredited Test Laboratory (Order) against Shenzhen STS Test Services Co. Ltd. (Shenzhen STS), a lab that the FCC has recognized since 2017 and that has been identified on approximately 4,100 equipment authorization applications to date.

The proceeding reflects the FCC’s broader effort over the last year to remove test labs with alleged ties to foreign adversaries from the equipment authorization pipeline. The agency voted in May 2025 to prohibit recognition of foreign-controlled test labs and Telecommunications Certification Bodies, and brought its first enforcement action under that framework in September 2025, with additional actions since.

The Order found:

• Shenzhen STS submitted identical or duplicated test data across at least 40 FCC IDs for unrelated products — for example, using the same test report for a smartphone, an automotive diagnostic system, and wireless earbuds. When contacted by OET, the lab did not dispute the allegations, attributing the duplication to reused report templates that were unedited between submissions.
• Based on the record, OET tentatively concluded that Shenzhen STS willfully submitted false test results in connection with equipment authorization applications, and it directed the lab to explain why its FCC recognition should not be withdrawn.

Shenzhen STS must file a response by August 25.

What this means 

• FCC rules require accurate certifications at every stage. Equipment applicants must certify that their products are not Covered List equipment, and test labs must certify the accuracy of the technical data they submit. Both proceedings arise from the FCC treating those certifications as substantive, verifiable representations — not a “tick-the-box” formality — and underscore the FCC’s willingness to initiate revocation or withdrawal when the underlying facts don’t hold up.

• Certifications are being independently verified, not taken at face value. The FCC contacted Odyssey’s named U.S. assembler directly. Any company relying on a domestic assembly claim to establish that its product is not Covered List equipment should be able to substantiate that claim.
• Granted authorizations remain subject to revocation. Odyssey’s authorizations already cleared FCC review and reached the market. The proceeding shows that authorization is not the finish line; a certification later found false can still unwind a grant already in the marketplace.
• Test lab reliability is now a compliance exposure for that lab’s clients. Any company whose FCC IDs relied on test reports from Shenzhen STS should determine whether its own authorizations are implicated and evaluate whether retesting is warranted.