Does giving a camera wings dodge the FCC’s drone ban?
HoverAir's parent company, Zero Zero Robotics, is testing a legal loophole to sell its new $750 Versa camera in the United States despite a December 2025 ban on new foreign-made drones. Rather than certify the Versa as a drone, the firm submitted it to the FCC solely as a handheld camera, with detachable propeller "wings" sold separately as an accessory kit, arguing this keeps it outside rules that specifically target DJI and Autel Robotics under the 2025 National Defense Authorization Act.
The FCC approved the camera portion on 9 August 2026, and HoverAir has since launched the Versa on Indiegogo, telling buyers it is fully compliant. The workaround relies on the fact that the FCC only certifies devices containing a wireless radio, and the snap-on propellers connect via copper contacts rather than wirelessly, potentially exempting them from review. However, The Verge's examination of the FCC's orders suggests the ban may also cover "UAS" more broadly, meaning the approval could have been granted in error and might not survive scrutiny.
- HoverAir sold its drone as a "camera" with optional flying propellers.
- Move aims to dodge the FCC's ban on foreign drones like DJI's.
- FCC approved it, but the loophole may not hold up legally.
New here? Start with this
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is the US regulator that approves many devices that use radio signals. A 2025 US defence law led to a ban on approving new drones made abroad, with rules aimed specifically at Chinese companies DJI and Autel Robotics; the restrictions may also apply more broadly to unmanned aircraft systems, or UAS.
Zero Zero Robotics, the Chinese company behind the HoverAir brand, makes small flying cameras. Its new Versa is presented to US regulators as a handheld camera, while its propeller kit is sold separately and attaches through copper contacts rather than a wireless link.
The question is whether that separation places the flying camera outside the ban, or whether the rules cover the complete aircraft regardless of how it is sold or approved. The distinction matters to US buyers and sellers, and to how the restrictions will apply to other foreign-made flying devices.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
The device genuinely separates the FCC-certified camera (which contains a wireless radio) from the mechanically-connected propeller assembly, meeting the technical requirements of existing regulations as written. The company disclosed the product's nature, obtained regulatory approval, and is operating within the letter of applicable rules—if policymakers intended a broader ban, they should have written more comprehensive regulations rather than relying on regulators to infer intent.
The case against
The product is functionally identical to a foreign-made drone banned for legitimate national security concerns, and splitting it into separate components to exploit technical loopholes fundamentally undermines the ban's purpose. The FCC approval itself appears erroneous, and the law's broader language covering unmanned aircraft systems likely covers this product regardless of how it is certified or configured.