Go to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.comGo to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.com
VitalLaw®
  • Find answers to your questions
  • Log in to access your subscriptions
In depth. On point.
In depth. On point.
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
In depth. On point.
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Law Firms
  • Law Firms
  • Organizations
  • Organizations
    • DOGE Team Temporarily Blocked From Accessing Treasury Systems
    • Cyber Crisis Response ‘Blueprint’ Proposed by European Commission
    • E.D. Cal.: Provider’s removal of privacy lawsuit to federal court found deficient, premature
    • House Data Privacy Working Group Seeks Public Input
    • Luminys Systems Says FCC Should Not Revoke Equipment Authorizations
    • Minnesota Bill Would Prohibit False Caller ID Information
    • Report: EU Financial Sector Facing Heightened Threats
    • Vermont Lawmakers to Consider Age-Appropriate Design Code Act
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Law Firms
  • Law Firms
  • Organizations
  • Organizations

    Cybersecurity Policy Report, Luminys Systems Says FCC Should Not Revoke Equipment Authorizations, (Feb 24, 2025)

    By Paul Kirby

    Luminys Systems Corp. has told the FCC that it shouldn’t revoke two equipment authorizations because it said the company “made no false statements or representations.”

    “The equipment for which Luminys sought, and obtained, ...

    By Paul Kirby

    Luminys Systems Corp. has told the FCC that it shouldn’t revoke two equipment authorizations because it said the company “made no false statements or representations.”

    “The equipment for which Luminys sought, and obtained, authorization is not ‘covered’ under the Commission’s rules, nor is any of the equipment described in these authorizations produced by an entity named on the Covered List,” the company said in a redacted version of a response to an order issued recently by the Office of Engineering and Technology and Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau ordering the company to show cause on why the FCC shouldn’t revoke the equipment authorizations held by Luminys “on the basis of false statements or representations made in the applications for those equipment authorizations that the equipment is not prohibited from receiving an equipment authorization pursuant to section 2.903 of the Commission’s rules” (CPR, Feb. 14).

    The FCC, Order to Show Cause, Dkt. 25-85 (Feb. 13, 2025) cited a “tentative conclusion that the ultimate source of the equipment is Dahua Technology Company, an entity identified on the Covered List.”

    “As demonstrated herein, the product components for which Luminys sought equipment authorization were not designed, developed, or manufactured by Dahua or its affiliates, nor does the product include any video surveillance equipment that is prohibited from authorization under the rules,” Luminys said in its filing, which was dated Friday in ET docket 25-85.

    “Because the products are not produced by a Covered List entity, Luminys did not make any false statement or representation when it certified the accuracy of its authorization application,” it added.

    “The Commission should therefore reconsider its tentative determinations in the Order and should decline to revoke the equipment authorizations obtained by Luminys,” it said. “Luminys remains committed to working collaboratively and in a transparent manner with the Commission and appreciates the Commission’s consideration of this response. Should the Commission require additional information, Luminys stands ready to provide further clarification.”

    News: FederalLegislation DataSecurity

    © 2026 CCH Incorporated and its affiliates and licensors. All rights reserved.

    • Manage Cookie Preferences
    • Privacy Statement
    • Terms of Use