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
  • Organizations
  • Organizations
    • CISA Offers K-12 Cybersecurity Help as Schools Prepare for New Year
    • Bipartisan Senate Bill Targets Chinese Exploitation of U.S. Tech
    • NIST Eyes AI to Solve Cyber Vulnerability Database Backlog
    • Parties Question Scope of FCC Know-Your-Upstream-Provider Proposal
    • Two Cyber Trust Mark Administrators Win Conditional FCC Approval
    • UAS Vendor’s FCC Authorizations Revoked Over Security Concerns
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Organizations
  • Organizations

    Cybersecurity Policy Report, UAS Vendor’s FCC Authorizations Revoked Over Security Concerns, (Aug 12, 2026)

    By Lynn Stanton

    The FCC’s Office of Engineering and Technology and Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau have revoked Odyssey Robot LLC’s equipment authorizations for FCC ID 2BSYT-FMAWZOD (uncrewed aircraft system or UAS) and FCC ID 2BSYT-YMAWZOD ...

    By Lynn Stanton

    The FCC’s Office of Engineering and Technology and Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau have revoked Odyssey Robot LLC’s equipment authorizations for FCC ID 2BSYT-FMAWZOD (uncrewed aircraft system or UAS) and FCC ID 2BSYT-YMAWZOD (UAS remote controller), citing “Odyssey’s false statements and representations in applications and supporting application materials that the Odyssey UAS Equipment was not covered communications equipment prohibited from receiving an equipment authorization” under FCC rules.

    In an order issued last month, OET and PSHSB had directed Odyssey to show cause why the FCC should not revoke the company’s equipment authorizations for the UAS and remote controller in question (CPR, July 22).

    Odyssey’s Jan. 12 applications in both cases certified that the equipment was not “covered equipment,” which in the case of UAS and UAS components would mean they were manufactured in the U.S.

    “On June 5, 2026, security researcher Konrad Iturbe published allegations that Odyssey provided materially false attestations to the FCC that the Odyssey UAS Equipment was not covered equipment,” OET and PSHSB said in yesterday’s order, FCC, Order of Revocation, Dkt. No. 26-186 (Aug. 11, 2026).

    The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau contacted eTak, the Texas company that Odyssey said assembled the devices, but it denied any business relationship with Odyssey.

    Odyssey did not respond to the show-cause order, OET and PSHSB said in the revocation order.

    News: FederalLegislation LitigationEnforcement DataSecurity

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

    • Manage Cookie Preferences
    • Privacy Statement
    • Terms of Use