Drone Law Brief | Year in Review: 2025

The year 2025 marked unmanned aviation's transition from emerging technology to strategic infrastructure. Across three continents, combat drones reshaped modern warfare - from Ukraine's swarm deployments to the precision strike operations in the Middle East - forcing governments worldwide to reckon with a technology they could no longer afford to regulate experimentally. What followed was a coordinated regulatory hardening: lawmakers replaced permissive frameworks with permanent legislation, enforcers prosecuted violations aggressively and security agencies imposed sweeping restrictions on foreign-manufactured systems.

In India, this shift played out across multiple fronts. The Ministry of Civil Aviation (“MoCA”) released a draft bill proposing the country's first standalone drone law, moving beyond delegated rules to primary legislation with criminal penalties for even minor violations, which have been criticized among other provisions as being a step back in drone policy. The securities regulator barred a listed drone company from markets after uncovering a multi-crore fraud involving fabricated revenues and Initial Public Offering (“IPO”) fund diversion. The Karnataka High Court hearing allegations that defense-grade drone technology had been stolen and transferred to competitors, ordered a Special Investigation Team (“SIT”) headed by the Director General of Police, acknowledging that conventional investigators lacked the sophistication to handle cyber espionage involving national security assets. Meanwhile, the aviation authority deregistered drones obtained through false import declarations, the new data protection law imposed obligations on operations and one state unveiled capital subsidies to position itself as a manufacturing hub.

Internationally, the United States led a recalibration of drone policy. Its communications regulator banned imports of foreign-manufactured drones outright, citing unacceptable security risks. Congress expanded law enforcement counter-drone powers through legislation embedded in the defense authorization act. The Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) proposed comprehensive rules to normalize beyond visual line of sight operations, while the Transportation Department released its decade-long roadmap for advanced air mobility integration. The United Kingdom mandated direct remote identification for all consumer drones and published operational expansion timelines, even as its High Court clarified that overflight at reasonable altitudes does not constitute trespass. Europe formalized an updated risk assessment framework, Germany authorized police to destroy threatening drones, and Australia launched population-density trials for expanded operations. Canada implemented the second phase of its regulatory expansion while issuing binding privacy guidance for government surveillance operations.

What follows is a jurisdiction-wise record of the regulatory, enforcement, and judicial precedents that will govern unmanned aviation in 2026 and beyond. Every operator, manufacturer, investor and policymaker in this space should understand what changed and how these developments matter.

India

1. Government released Civil Drone Bill - Reform or Reversal?

The Ministry of Civil Aviation released the Draft Civil Drone (Promotion and Regulation) Bill, 2025 ("Bill") for public consultation on 16 September 2025, with an initial deadline of 30 September 2025 - later extended to 15 October 2025. The Bill proposes India's first standalone drone legislation, replacing the Drone Rules, 2021 (“2021 Rules”) (framed under the Bharatiya Vayuyan Adhiniyam, 2024) and marking a shift from delegated rules to primary legislation. The Bill covers unmanned aircraft systems below 500 kilograms across their entire lifecycle - design, manufacture, trade, ownership, and operation - while exempting military and central armed police forces. State police operations remain regulated.

Notably, the Bill was issued without any explanatory note or policy brief justifying the need for new legislation. Industry response has been sharply critical, with NASSCOM calling for withdrawal of the Bill entirely and the Drone Federation of India warning it could treat compliant operators as "criminals-in-waiting". The concerns centre on removal of R&D exemptions, excessive criminalisation of minor violations, and broad police powers that did not exist under the 2021 Rules.

Impact on Manufacturers & Startups

Type certification is now mandatory for manufacturing, assembly, sale, transfer, and import - not just operation (Section 7). Under the 2021 Rules, manufacturers were not required to obtain type certification merely to manufacture, and exemptions existed for nano drones and R&D prototypes. This flexibility disappears unless future notifications provide exemptions. The R&D exemption under Rule 42 of the 2021 Rules has not been carried forward; while the Bill retains the concept of "prototype UAS", it provides no operational clarity. Prototypes not intended for sale now face the same compliance burden as commercial drones - a requirement that could be particularly onerous for startups, stifling innovation and slowing product development. Additionally, UIN is now required before first sale, meaning manufacturers may need to register drones before selling them (Section 6). This shifts compliance upstream; the toy drone market - often a gateway for young engineers - could shrink as a result.

Impact on Operators & Commercial Users

Remote Pilot Certificates are now mandatory for all operators (Section 23), with no exemptions provided for weight or purpose. Even students flying micro-drones would need certification unlike the 2021 Rules, which exempted nano and micro drones for non-commercial use. The Bill also introduces compulsory third-party insurance with no-fault liability of Rs. 2.5 lakh for death and Rs. 1 lakh for grievous hurt, with claims adjudicated by Motor Accident Claims Tribunals. This creates new operating costs. Property damage claims are now included in the definition of "accident" - something the 2021 Rules did not prescribe.

Impact on Hobbyists, Researchers & Educational Institutions

The Bill introduces a universal UIN requirement that extends to self-assembled drones and hobbyist devices (Section 6). The 2021 Rules had exempted model RPAS and nano drones. Critically, there is no explicit exemption for R&D or experimental flights, unlike Rule 42 of the 2021 Rules. This creates uncertainty for research institutions and educational programmes that previously operated under clearer carve-outs.

The Indian Aeromodellers Association ("IAMA") has raised concerns that the Bill clubs aeromodelling - a recreational and educational activity - with commercial drones. It argues that mandatory registration, licensing, type certification, and flight permissions are unsuitable for manually flown model aircraft and could "effectively end aeromodelling in India".

Enforcement & Airspace Controls

Operating in restricted zones is now a cognizable, non-compoundable offence punishable with imprisonment up to three years or fine up to Rs. 1 lakh (Sections 27(8), 31(3)). This criminalises what were civil violations under the 2021 Rules and could penalise accidental incursions, particularly where airspace maps are outdated or not easily accessible. Police and Directorate General of Civil Aviation (“DGCA) - authorised officers can now detain drones, documents, and electronic devices for up to seven days on mere suspicion - extendable by court order (Section 35). Drones may be released only upon execution of a bond, even before formal charges are filed. This creates a "chilling effect" on lawful operators; costly equipment could be grounded for minor infractions. While a dual enforcement structure exists - serious violations are non-compoundable while routine lapses can be compounded within 180 days - the threshold for "serious" is broadly defined. Abetment liability extends exposure to financiers, partners, and service providers linked to an offence.

Regulatory Uncertainty

Section 45 empowers the Central Government to make rules on classification, design standards, airworthiness, safety, pilot training, operational envelopes, and payload restrictions. A substantial portion of the operational framework is thus left to delegated legislation, creating uncertainty for businesses and investors on compliance requirements and costs. More significantly, the Government is empowered to regulate fares, tariffs, and charges for drone services - a major policy shift given that drone services have been commercially unregulated thus far. This opens the door to tariff-setting and market intervention that could restrict industry growth.

Industry Response

NASSCOM, in its submission, stated that there is no clear rationale for replacing the existing framework. It argued that the 2021 Rules and the Bharatiya Vayuyan Adhiniyam, 2024 already provide a comprehensive structure for safety and accountability and recommended targeted amendments to strengthen enforcement and compliance rather than an entirely new statute.

It was reported that the Drone Federation of India ("DFI") cautioned that the Bill could criminalise civil offences, reinstate compliance requirements, and create an "atmosphere of fear" among lawful operators. DFI President Smit Shah called the Bill a "rollback of reforms". The federation also highlighted that unregistered Chinese drones and uncertified agricultural drones continue to operate without effective deterrent action - suggesting that punitive measures may penalise compliant businesses while allowing actual violators to evade enforcement.

International Context

The Bill's approach contrasts with peer jurisdictions. The US FAA exempts recreational flyers from licensing. The EU's Open Category requires only a simple online test for low-risk drones. China allows hobbyists to fly without pilot certificates. India's draft Bill - with universal certification and criminal penalties for minor violations - would make it an outlier: not merely strict, but punitively so.

What Happens Next

The consultation period closed on 15 October 2025. Industry bodies are pushing for specific amendments: restore R&D exemptions, decriminalise minor violations, and create a graded penalty system proportionate to the harm caused. Given the intensity of pushback, there is speculation that the Bill may be heavily revised - or, like the overly restrictive UAS Rules of March 2021, quietly shelved.

Read our comparative piece on how the Bill fares against the 2021 Rules: The Civil Drone (Promotion & Regulation) Bill, 2025 — Policy Reset or Continuity with Teeth?

2. DGCA Director General signals BVLOS rules in an advanced stage

The Directorate General of Civil Aviation’s (“DGCA”) Director General, Faiz Ahmed Kidwai, said during the visit to  drone facility that the DGCA is “in advance stage of finalising beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) rules to allow extensive use of drones for asset inspection and deliveries”. These follow similar previous remarks during industry events and push from industry bodies seeking easier Beyond Visual Line of Sight (“BVLOS”) rules.

In the absence of a regulatory framework, operators continue to work under the 2021 Rules and existing DGCA permissions/exemptions for trials. Once India’s BVLOS rules are issued, they are expected to align with broader safety and traffic-management systems, including Unmanned Aircraft System (“UAS”) and Unmanned Aircraft System Traffic Management (“UTM”), Remote ID and tracking, command-and-control link integrity, pilot safety-case requirements, and airspace zoning through geo-fencing.  India has been a laggard in this sector while there have been substantial developments across jurisdictions regarding BVLOS. More on this in the Global section.

3. Uniform 5% GST rate announced for all drones

The Government of India announced a uniform 5% GST rate on all drones, effective 9 September 2025 replacing the earlier rates of 18% for drones with integrated cameras and 28% for those used for personal purposes. The move is expected to lower end-user costs, remove classification uncertainty and boost adoption across sectors such as agriculture, mining, infrastructure, logistics, and defence. The notification also exempts flight and motion simulators from GST, a measure aimed at supporting India’s growing drone training ecosystem. [See also, PIB’s factsheet]

4. New Bharatiya Vayuyan Adhiniyam replaces former Aircraft Act

Bharatiya Vayuyan Adhiniyam 2024, came into force on 1 January 2025 replacing the 91 years old Aircraft Act of 1934. This new legislation provides a modern statutory anchor for UAS, granting the Central Government explicit rule-making powers over drone design, manufacture, maintenance, and trade. The Central Government may delegate the specific powers (except rule-making) to the DGCA or the Director General of Bureau of Civil Aviation Security or the Director General of Aircraft Accidents Investigation Bureau or any other officer or authority empowered by the Central Government.

5. Drone-related services migrated to eGCA portal

The DGCA migrated drone regulatory services from the DigitalSky platform to the unified eGCA portal on 3 July 2025. The migration covers applications for Type Certification, Unique Identification Number (UIN) issuance, and Remote Pilot Certificate generation. The eGCA portal operates as a mandatory single-window digital platform for all drone stakeholders. The offline certificate issuance by Remote Pilot Training Organisations is now prohibited under the new framework.

6. DPDP Rules notified, imposing new obligations on drone operators

The Government of India notified the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025 (“Rules, 2025”), on 14 November 2025 - over two years after the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (“DPDP Act”), was enacted. For the drone industry, which relies heavily on capturing visual data (images, video, LiDAR) of public and private spaces, the Rules, 2025 provide the consent mechanisms required for data collection. This is a compliance watershed for drone operators, particularly in surveillance and surveying:

• Consent Architecture: Drone service providers must now implement a “verifiable consent” mechanism before capturing personal data (e.g., identifiable faces or license plates) in non-public zones.

• Data Fiduciary Status: Commercial drone operators will be classified as Data Fiduciaries, mandating strict data storage audits and grievance redressal mechanisms.

• Data Minimisation and Privacy by Design: Manufacturers may need to update firmware to include “privacy masking” features (such as automatically blurring faces) to avoid liability under the stringent penalty clauses of the Rules, 2025.

• Other aspects for drone operators to consider and plan for in due course are negative country list for cross-border data transfer and data breach notification requirements.

7. New Aircraft Accident Rules notified with enhanced UAS related provisions

The MoCA on 7 November 2025 notified the Aircraft (Investigation of Accidents and Incidents) Rules, 2025 (“Aircraft Rules, 2025”), under the Bharatiya Vayuyan Adhiniyam, 2024. These Rules replace the Aircraft (Investigation of Accidents and Incidents) Rules, 2017 (“Aircraft Rules, 2017”) issued under the erstwhile Aircraft Act, 1934. Some points to note:

• The Aircraft Rules, 2025 introduced updated provisions regarding Unmanned Aircraft ("UA"), building upon the initial recognition provided in the Aircraft Rules, 2017. The rules expand the regulatory vocabulary by introducing key terms covering the full operational structure of remotely controlled flight: Remotely piloted aircraft (an UA piloted from a remote station), the Remote pilot station (the ground component containing the piloting equipment), and the C2 Link (the data link connecting the aircraft and the remote station), collectively defined as a Remotely piloted aircraft system.

• Under Rule 7, concerning the protection of evidence, the rules explicitly clarified that the "relevant material" that the Investigator-in-Charge must have access to includes the remotely piloted aircraft, its associated remotely pilot station, the required C2 Link, and any associated recordings and documents, extending evidence preservation obligations beyond the physical wreckage to cover the complete control infrastructure.

• Operationally, the rules clarified that the remote pilot-in-command shall notify authorities of occurrences, and updated the list of serious incidents to include remote pilot incapacitation under single-pilot operations and a new criterion requiring investigators to assess whether the incident's most credible escalation could have resulted in a person being fatally or seriously injured.

Read our November, 2025 newsletter for a longer version of this update.

8. CISF Seized 22 High-End Drones at the Hyderabad Airport

It was reported that the Central Industrial Security Force (“CISF”)  intercepted 22 imported DJI Mini 5 Pro drones, valued at ₹26.7 lakh and suspected to have arrived illegally from Singapore, at Rajiv Gandhi International Airport in Hyderabad on 5 November 2025.

Under the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) Notification No. 54/2015-2020 dated 9 February 2022 the import of drones in Completely Built Up (“CBU”), Semi Knocked Down (“SKD”) or Completely Knocked Down (“CKD”) form is prohibited, except when imported by recognised government entities, defence/security agencies, educational/Research and Development institutions or approved drone manufacturers, and then only with prior authorisation from the DGFT in consultation with the relevant line ministries. Import of drone components does not attract any levy and is categorised as “Free”. Despite the prohibition, foreign-made drones led by DJI continue to dominate the market in India. Data publicly available on the DGCA's DigitalSky Portal on UINs issued show DJI drones make up for nearly 25% of the drones registered.

9. Delhi Police issues SOPs for usage of drones by the force

It was reported that all 15 district units of the Delhi Police received 75 drones of various sizes which will be deployed for various purposes including crime scene documentation, crowd control, etc. It was also reported that “the Delhi Police has laid down a Standard Operating Procedure (SOPs) for drone usage, emphasising compliance with privacy, data protection, Human Rights Laws and compliance with the National Aviation Authority Regulation & The Drone Rules, 2021. They cannot be used for unauthorised facial recognition or personal surveillance.”

The editors of this newsletter retrieved the SOP via a Right to Information application - the SOP is available here. Upon review, the document provides only high-level directions regarding legal compliance and prohibition on unauthorised use, falling short of the comprehensive privacy and data protection framework suggested by media reports. The SOP lacks specificity on key operational safeguards, including mechanisms to prevent unauthorised facial recognition, data retention protocols, or grievance redressal procedures. Whether these gaps will be addressed through supplementary internal guidelines or operational manuals remains to be seen.

10. Karnataka High Court constituted SIT to investigate drone IP theft allegations

In April 2025, the High Court of Karnataka directed the Karnataka Government to constitute a SIT headed by the Director General of Police, in a case filed by NewSpace Research and Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (“NRT”) which alleged that former employees, including a Vice-President, conspired to steal highly sensitive proprietary data, including UAV source codes, CAD designs, confidential defense technologies, copyrighted information, and project files, for the benefit of a rival firm, Lenviz Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

• The High Court noted that NRT is a drone manufacturing company specializing in aerospace and defense research, whose major clientele includes national security stakeholders such as the Indian Army, Air Force, Navy, BEL, HAL, and DRDO. NRT had stated in its initial police complaint that the stolen information was criminally abused by the accused to develop strikingly similar products and secure defense contracts, causing irreparable loss.

• NRT also stated before the High Court that the investigation by the local police suffered from a lack of fairness demonstrated by the local police, including delays in taking accused into custody and allegations of corruption against the investigating officer, besides alleged interference during the proceedings of the court commissioner that was appointed by another bench of the High Court, which had attempted to visit accused Lenviz’s offices in Noida.

• Given that the case carried the colour of a cyber espionage and involved complex defense technology, the Court concluded that conventional officers were ill-equipped to handle the matter. Consequently, the High Court had allowed the petition and ordered the investigation be transferred to a SIT headed by a Director General of Police, recognizing that the State must evolve to tackle new-age cyber crimes. It directed that there will be a continuing mandamus and directed the SIT report to be filed in due course. Matter will now come up

Order of the High Court of Karnataka passed on 25 April, 2025 can be accessed here.

11. SEBI fined & barred DroneAcharya, its promoters from securities markets

On 28 November 2025, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (“SEBI”) passed a final order against DroneAcharya Aerial Innovations Limited (“DAIL”), a Bombay Stock Exchange Small and Medium Enterprises (“BSE SME”) listed drone company, and its promoters. The investigation, covering FY 2022-23 and 2023-24, was triggered by suspicions of mis-utilization of IPO proceeds, financial misrepresentation, and diversion of funds. SEBI concluded that the company's promoters, aided by financial advisors and vendors, orchestrated a fraudulent scheme involving misleading corporate announcements to artificially maintain share prices, thereby facilitating the exit of pre-IPO investors at the cost of public shareholders.

SEBI looked into the following:

• Fraudulent Scheme: DAIL’s issuance of Optionally Convertible Preference Shares (OCPS) pre-IPO with a promise of listing, and subsequently issued misleading corporate announcements (such as regarding non-binding MoUs or "Make in India" initiatives that were actually import deals) to inflate/sustain share prices for the benefit of pre-IPO investors.

• Financial Misrepresentation: DAIL’s inflation of revenue and profits by recognizing income from various entities without actual delivery of goods/services or performance of obligations.

• Mis-utilization of IPO Proceeds: Rs. 33.96 Crores raised were used for the stated object (“Purchase of Drones and other accessories”) or diverted to other vendors (like Micro Infratech) for unstated purposes without proper shareholder approval.

• Disclosure Lapses: Failure to disclose Related Party Transactions and incorrect shareholding pattern disclosures.

Holdings and Penalties

SEBI established that the company, its promoters and others involved violated the SEBI Act, Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Regulations (“PFUTP Regulations”) and Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements Regulations (“LODR Regulations”):

• DAIL was found to have engaged in a fraudulent scheme, financial misrepresentation, and mis-utilization of IPO proceeds. They are restrained from accessing the securities market for 2 years.

• Mr. Prateek Srivastava (MD) & Ms. Nikita Srivastava (CFO) have been held primarily responsible for devising and executing the fraudulent scheme, financial misrepresentation, and diversion of funds. They have been restrained from accessing the securities market for 2 years and imposed a monetary penalty of ₹20 Lakhs each.

• Others involved in the fraudulent activities were banned from accessing the securities markets for 1-2 years.

12. Raphe mPhibir flagged proprietary data breach

In October 2025, Raphe mPhibir CEO Vivek Mishra posted on LinkedIn that former employees allegedly took proprietary data and collaborated with competitors using the stolen information. Details of legal steps taken remain undisclosed. To note, Raphe mPhibir is India’s highest funded pure-play drone tech company.

13. DGCA cancelled registrations of illegally imported drones

On 12 August 2025 DGCA cancelled registrations of UAS obtained via false self-declaration on DigitalSky, citing the misuse of “model” drone exemptions to register imported drones without clearance, violating the DGFT import ban. Affected operators were given 30 days to show cause or face deregistration and penalties.

14. DGCA issued type certification guidelines for UAS under 150 kg

DGCA released a circular dated 30 October 2025 for manufacturers to obtain type certificates for UAS under 150 kg and procedures for modifying already type-certified UAS models. The guidelines  are for design approval, addressing technical standards, documentation requirements, and compliance verification protocols that manufacturers must satisfy before their drone models can be legally operated in Indian airspace.

15. Madhya Pradesh Government notified Drone Promotion Policy

Madhya Pradesh unveiled a state policy on 13 February 2025 to position itself as a drone manufacturing hub, offering a 40% capital investment subsidy (capped at ₹30 crore). The policy included specific R&D grants of up to ₹2 crore.

16. MHA and BCAS mandates counter-UAS deployment at all airports

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS) mandated deployment of advanced anti-drone systems at all major and minor civil airports across India. The directive responds to growing recognition that airports represent critical vulnerable targets for hostile drone activity, whether deliberate disruption, smuggling, or reconnaissance. While the editors of this newsletter could not retrieve the official mandate, multiple news channels such as Security India (here), The Indian Express (here) and Construction World (here), channels have reported the mandate.

17. DGCA Classified Jagannath Temple, Puri as a Red Zone

The DGCA declared the Sri Jagannath Temple, Puri as a Red Zone. As DigitalSky reflects, the classification was added on 26 September 2025 and will remain in force till 25 September 2028.

●       As per Rule 3(1) of the 2021 Rules,a red zone refers to an area within which drone operations are only permitted by the Central Government. Further, Rule 22 of 2021 Rules prohibits operations of drones without prior permission in a Red or Yellow Zone.

●       This action comes against reports of unauthorised drone activities in the area. The temple had previously also been designated as a Red Zone during the 2023 Rath Yatra and in January 2025, following drone sightings.

The three-year duration for a religious site, combined with similar restrictions at other temples and event venues, reflects a precautionary approach that prioritizes security over operational flexibility. Interestingly, in March this year, the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam (“TTD”), the trust that maintains Tirupati temple, had written to the MoCA requesting that Tirumala be declared a no-fly zone to prevent aircraft from flying over the sacred pilgrimage site. In response to the request Union Minister Ram Mohan Naidu Kinjarapu had stated that there is no provision for declaring an area as a 'No-Fly' zone.

18. Parliamentary Data Reveals Drone Sector Growth and Airspace Allocation

In response to a Rajya Sabha Question by MP Sanjeev Arora, Minister of State for Civil Aviation Shri Murlidhar Mohol disclosed key statistics on India's drone sector as of September 2024:

• Commercial Drone Registrations: 10,208 type-certified commercial drones are registered on the DigitalSky Platform. The DGCA has issued 96 Type Certificates to different UAS models, with agriculture-based drones comprising 65 certificates and logistics/surveillance-based drones comprising the remaining 31.

• In terms of airspace allocation, the breakdown reveals:

• Airspace Red Zones: 9,969

• Airport Red Zones (5km radius): 147

• Airport Yellow Zones (5-8km): 147

• Airport Yellow Zones (8-12km): 147

• Coastal Area India region (25km): 1

Approximately 86% of India's airspace remains classified as green zones, available for drone operations without permission.

c. Regulatory Measures: The Minister outlined steps taken to promote safe drone use, including the liberalized 2021 Rules, the Certification Scheme for Unmanned Aircraft 2022, and the Drone (Amendment) Rules 2024, which eliminated mandatory passport requirements for drone registration, now accepting government-issued identity and address proofs.

The dominance of agriculture in type certifications (68% of all certified models) underscores the sector's commercial priorities, while the 9,969 airspace red zones, besides airport-related restrictions, highlight the extent of security-driven operational limitations that operators must navigate despite the nominal availability of 86% green airspace.

Global

1. United States of America

a. Executive Order for ‘American Drone Dominance’ issued

President Trump on 6 June 2025 issued an Executive Order with deadlines and timetables for promoting export of American drones,  proposed rules including for BVLOS flights and integration of drones into American Airspace.

b. Department of Transport released Advanced Air Mobility National Strategy

On 17 December 2025 the US Department of Transport released the new Advanced Air Mobility National Strategy for 2026 to 2036. The strategy outlines a roadmap for the safe integration of eVTOLs and autonomous aircraft into the national airspace, structured around six core pillars: airspace, infrastructure, security, community planning, workforce, and automation. It emphasizes a phased "LIFT" approach that prioritizes leveraging existing airport and heliport infrastructure for initial operations by 2027, while progressively moving toward a cooperative, automated airspace management model to support scaled, autonomous operations by 2035.

c. FAA proposes Part 108 for routine BVLOS operations

In a significant step towards integrating UAS into the US national airspace, the FAA released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) titled “Normalizing UAS Beyond Visual Line of Sight Operations” (Docket FAA-2025-1908) for public comments open till 6 October 2025. It notes that a large portion of the operations under the rule will be commercial. It proposes performance-based regulations to enable the design and operation of UAS at low altitudes beyond visual line of sight and for third-party services, including UTM, that support these operations. While the FAA’s draft rules are jurisdiction-specific, the depth of regulatory thought on airworthiness, operator responsibility, cybersecurity, and managed airspace will offer a legal blueprint with global relevance.

d. US FCC banned foreign drones citing unacceptable risks

On 22 December 2025 the Federal Communications Commission (‘FCC’) banned import into the US of drones made in foreign countries except those recommended by the Department of Defense or Department of Homeland Security. Without adding specific companies, FCC’s Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau added ‘Uncrewed aircraft systems and its critical components produced in a foreign country’ to the Covered List. To note, the Covered List already prohibited new communications technology considered a national security risk from being shipped to the United States, however, such prohibitions were not applicable on previously authorized devices, permitting their continued importation, sale, and marketing.

e. Safer Skies Act passed to secure infrastructure and public events

The Safer Skies Act, 2025 was signed into law on 18 December 2025 as an extended component of the  National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”). The legislation restores and expands federal authorities that had expired earlier in the year, granting state, local, tribal, and territorial law enforcement the legal power to detect, track, and mitigate unauthorized drones near sensitive locations. Designed to counter the rising threat of "rogue" drone activity, the act provides essential security protections for critical infrastructure, correctional facilities, and high-profile public gatherings.

f. US department issues memorandum mandating UAS procurement requirements

This White House memorandum issued on 21 November 2025 mandated by the American Security Drone Act (ASDA), establishes a comprehensive government-wide policy requiring Federal agencies to minimize reliance on insecure, foreign-manufactured UAS due to risks like data breaches and embedded surveillance. Agencies must now integrate specific security procedures into all UAS procurements, requiring an impact assessment and applying safeguards such as multifactor authentication, software update controls, and cryptographic protection for sensitive Federal data stored or transmitted by the UAS. Crucially, effective 22 December 2025 Federal funds provided through grants or awards are explicitly prohibited from being used by recipients to procure or operate a prohibited UAS, though limited exemptions are available for specific mission-critical operations.

g. eVTOL race lands Joby and Archer in Court

Joby Aero, Inc. (“Joby”), on 20 November 2025 filed a complaint before a California Court alleging, among other things, misappropriation of data, breach of contract & interference, and breach of loyalty & fiduciary duties, against its rival, Archer Aviation, Inc. (“Archer”) and its former employee George Kivorke (its US State and Local Policy Lead), who went on to join Archer.

• In July 2025, Kivork informed Joby he was resigning to take a position at Archer, a competitor founded in 2018. Two days before announcing his resignation, Kivork allegedly secretly downloaded and emailed himself dozens of highly valuable Joby files, in violation of the agreements signed with Joby. These stolen files allegedly contained confidential partnership terms, business and regulatory strategies, and technical specifications.

• Joby claims the information was immediately used by Archer for corporate espionage. Shortly after Kivork left, one of Joby's strategic partners, a major real estate developer (“Developer”) with whom Joby had an exclusive agreement, reported that Archer had approached them with detailed knowledge of the confidential terms of Joby’s agreement. Archer allegedly used this illicit information to offer a more lucrative deal,” allowing Archer to “skip over the negotiations and unfairly guarantee that its offer would beat Joby’s,” leading the Developer to terminate the exclusive Agreement with Joby. The complaint details how Joby intended to use the Developer’s extensive infrastructure as vertiports due to their prime locations and ongoing investments.

• Joby says it attempted to get Kivork and Archer to cooperate, however, upon their failure to do so, filed the complaint “For the sake of the success of the burgeoning eVTOL industry, and to ensure fair competition".

In its complaint, Joby has alleged the following:

i. Misappropriation and Computer Fraud

●      Trade Secret Misappropriation: Kivork and Archer allegedly violated the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) by using and disclosing Joby’s proprietary technical, commercial, regulatory, and deal structure information, which Joby took reasonable steps to protect, for their competitive benefit.

●      Computer Fraud: Kivork violated the California Penal Code by altering security settings on Joby's systems to gain wrongful control over Joby's confidential data, even after leaving the company.

ii. Breach of Contract and Related Interference

●      Breach of Confidentiality/Non-Competition by Kivork who breached the terms of his PIIA by failing to return confidential information, using it for Archer's benefit, falsely certifying he had taken no documents, and assisting a competitor (Archer) while still employed.

●      Interference with Joby's Strategic Partnerships by Archer which intentionally induced Kivork’s breach of contract and tortiously interfered with Joby’s exclusive contract and prospective economic advantage with the Developer by using the stolen confidential deal terms to undercut Joby.

iii. Breach of Loyalty and Fiduciary Duties

●      Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Duty of Loyalty by Kivork, who in his senior role, owed Joby duties of good faith and loyalty, which he allegedly breached by stealing confidential information and taking actions, such as manipulating file ownership, to assist his future employer (Archer) in competing against Joby while still on Joby’s payroll.

●      Aiding and Abetting by Archer, who knowingly provided substantial assistance and encouragement to Kivork in breaching his fiduciary duties and duty of loyalty, thereby obtaining competitive advantage.

Read the California Court filing by Joby here. Media reporting available here and here.

2. United Kingdom

a. UA Regulations amended to tighten compliances

The Unmanned Aircraft (Amendment) Regulations 2025, made on 20 October 2025 and primarily effective from 1 January 2026 formalizes the UK’s divergence from European Union standards by introducing a distinct UK-specific class marking system (UK0–UK6) to replace the previous CE marks. This amendment shifts the regulatory focus toward tighter security and "privacy-first" operations, most notably by lowering the registration threshold to mandate Flyer IDs for all drones weighing 100g or more (down from 250g) and requiring Remote ID functionality for all new class-marked aircraft. Additionally, the legislation empowers the Civil Aviation Authority (“CAA”) as the Market Surveillance Authority, renames operational sub-categories for greater clarity (e.g., A2 becomes "Near People") and extends transitional provisions for "legacy" drones to prevent immediate obsolescence for current operators.

b. New Penalties and Police Powers Enacted

The Unmanned Aircraft (Offences and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025, effective 1 January 2026, establishes a dedicated criminal enforcement framework for drone operations in the UK. This amendment is critical because it translates the technical requirements of the UK Implementing Regulation (Retained EU Regulation 2019/947) into specific statutory offences, moving away from the generic "breach of order" provisions under the Air Navigation Order 2016. The regulations define distinct criminal liabilities for both UAS operators (e.g., failing to register or obtain operational authorisation) and remote pilots (e.g., flying without competency or maintaining visual line of sight). Crucially, the instrument amends the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021 to extend police powers, such as stop and search and the ability to issue fixed penalty notices, to cover these new specific offences, thereby tightening the enforcement net around non-compliant "Open," "Specific," and "Certified" category operations.

c. UK CAA publishes BVLOS roadmap

The UK CAA on 20 October 2025 published insights into how it sees BVLOS operations evolve this decade and beyond. Future of Flight: BVLOS Roadmap outlines operational pathways to enable routine BVLOS drone operations. The document describes a “safe, realistic, and proportionate” three-year plan that builds on ongoing UK trials in delivery and infrastructure inspection. It notes that the CAA breaks the UAS market into seven pathways overall, out of which three are discussed in the publication:

• Atypical Air Environment (“AAE”): Operations in airspace in close proximity to specific ground infrastructure (within AAE) such as linear infrastructure inspection, security & surveillance and agriculture.

• Integrated Low Level BVLOS Over Urban Area: Operations integrated with other airspace users in low level airspace (<500ft AGL) over populated areas such as last mile deliveries.

• Inspection Fully Integrated BVLOS: Operations integrated with other airspace users in all airspace such as emergency air services, offshore asset inspection, middle mile deliveries (between warehouse /distribution centres).

d. HCJ committee recommended mandatory counter-UAS for prisons

On 31 October 2025 the House of Commons Justice Committee published the Sixth Report of Session 2024–26 -“Tackling the Drugs Crisis in Our Prisons”, finding that 39% of prisoners say illicit drugs are “easy to acquire.” The report flags that drone-borne contraband has become a “paradigm shift” in ingress routes, noting records of a 770% rise in drone sightings around high-security prisons between 2019 and 2023.  The Committee recommends that the Ministry of Justice mandate installation of drone-detection and signal-disruption systems, such as the SkyFence system, across all Category A prisons within two years. It regards traditional perimeter measures as unable to keep pace with this emerging aerial threat. The report signals a likely regulatory requirement for counter-UAS deployment in U.K. custodial facilities.

e. CAA on operations in atypical air environments

The UK CAA has released its Atypical Air Environment (AAE) Policy Concept, an innovative interim guidance designed to enable expanded BVLOS UAS operations in volumes of airspace where the risk of mid-air collision is significantly reduced due to close proximity to defined infrastructure (e.g., railways, windfarms, or structures within 50ft to 100ft). To secure an Operational Authorisation (OA) within an AAE, operators must implement stringent mitigations, including pre-tactical flight route notification (typically via NOTAM), employing high-intensity anti-collision lighting, and utilizing a robust onboard containment solution, such as geo-caging. This is the third edition of the policy.

f. High Court ruled no automatic right to exclude drones from airspace above private property

The High Court dismissed a claim for drone trespass against a protestor flying a drone at approximately 50 meters above a private animal breeding facility. The court ruled that flying at such a height did not interfere with the landowner’s "ordinary use and enjoyment" of the land, affirming that landowners do not have an automatic right to exclude drones from the airspace above their property unless specific nuisance or harm is proven, rejecting arbitrary exclusion zones (e.g., 100m) absent statutory backing.

3. European Union

a. EASA adopts SORA 2.5 framework for specific operations

The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (“EASA”) issued ED Decision 2025/018/R on 29 September 2025 updating its Acceptable Means of Compliance (“AMC”) and Guidance Material (“GM”) for Regulation (EU) 2019/947, which is the regulation governing drone operations in the EU. EASA adopted the new Specific Operations Risk Assessment (SORA 2.5) framework and refreshed its compliance guidance. This meant any drone operator in the EU seeking permission for medium-risk operations such as BVLOS mapping, delivery, or inspection, now has a clearer and standardized path to get authorized.

b. EASA published ADS-L standard for drone tracking

On 1 December 2025 EASA published an update to the “ADS-L” (ADS-B Light) technical standard, establishing an Accepted Means of Compliance for integrating lightweight transmitters onto drones. This specification is vital for future harmonized drone tracking and U-Space interoperability in Europe.

4. Germany

Government authorized drone shoot-down powers to federal policeThe German cabinet approved draft legislation on 8 October 2025 to authorise federal police to shoot down drones that pose immediate threats. This move follows a surge in drone incidents and aligns Germany with other European states expanding counter-UAS powers. The legislation now requires parliamentary approval.

5. Australia

a. Launched BVLOS trial pathways based on population density

As part of its effort to make BVLOS operations more accessible, Australia’s Civil Aviation Safety Authority (“CASA”) launched a 12-month trial which includes four new BVLOS trial pathways from 15 October 2025 for small drones (25 kg or less). Unlike the UK CAA’s pathways, Australia’s CASA created the pathways based on the population density of an area and UAS speed.

b. Flight Information Management System (FIMS) Rollout

As mandated by the Aviation White Paper – Towards 2050, the Australian Government commenced the initial rollout of the Flight Information Management System (FIMS) in 2025. This digital air traffic management architecture is designed to facilitate the safe integration of drones into controlled airspace by enabling real-time electronic communication between air traffic control and uncrewed aircraft, serving as a foundational layer for future UTM services.

6. United Arab Emirates

a. Dans became UAE's first certified U-Space provider

It was reported that the Dubai Air Navigation Services (“Dans”) became the first certified U-Space Service Provider in the UAE. The General Civil Aviation Authority granted the certificate following the introduction of the UAE's first national regulation for approving UAS service providers in March 2025. The certification authorised Dans to operate a centralised platform for managing drone traffic across UAE airspace.

b. UAE eased drone restrictions with permit requirements

UAE lifted its conditional ban on individual drone operations, allowing citizens and residents to fly drones with permits obtained through the UAE Drones platform. Core operational conditions include visual line of sight operations during daytime only, maximum altitude of 400 feet, avoidance of restricted areas displayed in the app, and weight limits of 5kg or less, alongside training certificate requirements.

Separately, the Dubai Civil Aviation Authority introduced a requirement that commercial operators must hold a valid Dubai trade license to obtain local drone permits, adding a business registration layer to operating permissions. The dual developments reflect the UAE's approach of expanding access for recreational users while tightening commercial compliances through localized licensing requirements.

7. South Africa

DoT proposed drone corridors in airfreight strategy

The Department of Transport released the Airfreight Strategy for South Africa, 2025 that proposed mandatory registration of all drones, risk-based regulation and categorisation and the creation of dedicated drone corridors.

8. Canada

a. Canada implemented phase two of BVLOS regulations

The second phase of the Regulations Amending the Canadian Aviation Regulations (RPAS – Beyond Visual Line-of-Sight and Other Operations) were implemented on 4 November 2025. This phase expands operational permissions for remotely piloted aircraft systems, allowing medium-sized drones to operate within visual line-of-sight, permits extended visual line-of-sight flights, enabled sheltered operations near structures, and authorised lower-risk BVLOS operations in uncontrolled airspace without a Special Flight Operations Certificate. These permissions apply where the operator holds a Pilot Certificate - Advanced Operations and the RPAS meets prescribed technical and operational requirements. These amendments build on the first phase implemented on 1 April 2025 which introduced the Level 1 Complex pilot certification category and the RPAS Operator Certificate (RPOC) framework. Together, the two phases represent a structured transition to a risk-based approach for routine RPAS operations in Canada.

b. Privacy requirements notice issued for Drone Data Collection

The Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat issued Privacy Implementation Notice 2025-03, establishing binding guidance for federal institutions on the collection of personal information via UAS. The directive mandates that government operators must verify legal authority prior to deployment and implement automated technical safeguards - such as real-time blurring of faces and license plates in order to de-identify "inadvertently captured" surveillance data, aligning drone usage with privacy laws.

9. Belgium

NSC issued drone security planFollowing disruptions caused by unidentified drones at airports and military bases, Belgium’s National Security Council has on 6 November 2025 reportedly:

• Announced that a National Airspace Security Centre (NASC) will be fully operational by 1 January 2026.

• Mandated the registration of all drones and pilots, and reinforced penalties for violations.

• Discussed a procurement programme for anti-drone equipment.

10. Singapore

a. CAAS mandates Drone Remote ID Rule

The Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (“CAAS”) announced that, effective 1 December 2025  all drones operating in Singapore airspace must broadcast a Remote Identification signal. This requirement applies to both recreational and commercial drones above a minimal weight threshold.

b. Unified ANR 101 framework for recreational, educational and business UA operations

The CAAS has consolidated the Unmanned Regulatory Requirements framework for ANR 101 - Unmanned Aircraft Operations into three use-based categories: recreational, educational and business/non‑recreational/non‑educational purposes. The online portal guides users through registration, training, permit and licensing requirements, while explicitly directing operators to the Air Navigation (101 - Unmanned Aircraft Operations) Regulations for applicable offences, penalties and compliance obligations. CAAS also underscores that it “will not hesitate” to take enforcement action against errant users, signalling a continued enforcement‑led approach to safe and responsible UA operations across all user types.

c. Mandatory B-RID for UA above 250g

With effect from 1 December 2025 all UA weighing above 250g are required to be equipped with Broadcast Remote Identification (B-RID) when operated outdoors, except where the operator holds an Operator Permit and uses the FlyItSafe app or the UA is flown indoors/in an enclosed environment.

d. NASP 2025–2027 prioritises UAS integration and UTMS

CAAS has introduced National Aviation Safety Plan (NASP) 2025–2027, which formally identified safe integration of uncrewed aircraft systems, development of a national uncrewed traffic management system and streamlined UA regulatory processes as strategic safety actions for 2025–2027, signalling future rulemaking priorities.

e. MOT and CAAS Joint UA Oversight​

The Ministry of Transport (MOT) and CAAS jointly regulate UA to safeguard aviation and public safety, highlighting the need to comply with regulatory compliance, lists dos & don’ts, and also mentions no‑fly zones (for commercial UA Flying Areas, there may be fees and differences in operating hours. Operators are required to refer to the respective company website published on OneMap for more information).

Related reading

The Civil Drone (Promotion & Regulation) Bill, 2025: policy reset or continuity with teeth?

Understanding the data protection law's impact on drone operations

Import and export regulations for drones in India

Are DJI drones legal in India?

Timeline of key drone regulatory and industry developments in India