Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has hauled Austin-based drone maker Anzu Robotics, LLC into court, accusing the company of selling rebadged DJI hardware that hides ties to Beijing and puts Texans at risk of data exposure and security breaches.
The lawsuit, filed yesterday, asks a Texas court to shut down Anzu’s marketing and sales in the state, impose civil penalties, and order other relief. Paxton said the case follows an earlier lawsuit filed this week and is part of a broader push to keep what he calls CCP‑aligned technology out of Texas markets.
According to NewsRadio 740 KTRH, the complaint claims Anzu has been selling rebranded products from Chinese drone giant DJI and using Anzu as a passthrough to dodge federal and state restrictions. The filing alleges that Anzu’s Raptor‑series drones use DJI hardware, DJI‑signed encrypted firmware and DJI software components that leave the same vulnerabilities intact. Paxton said in a statement, "Anzu Robotics products are nothing more than a 21st century trojan horse linked to the CCP.” His office says it will seek injunctive relief, civil penalties and other remedies.
Paxton’s office also sued router‑maker TP‑Link on Tuesday, in what Bloomberg Law described as the first of several China‑linked cases he launched this week. That petition accuses TP‑Link of deceptive marketing and of obscuring its ties to China, following state-level prohibitions and procurement limits aimed at certain foreign vendors. Legal observers note that this wave of filings will test whether licensing and rebranding are treated by courts as legitimate workarounds or as illegal attempts to sidestep export controls and procurement bans.
What Anzu Says and How the Raptor Is Built
On its website, Anzu pitches the Raptor line as an enterprise‑grade drone platform with U.S.‑based data hosting, no geofencing and support through a domestic dealer network. The company lists an Austin address on its contact page, and Anzu Robotics emphasizes security and U.S. data practices in its marketing.
Industry coverage has traced the Raptor’s technical roots to DJI’s Mavic 3 enterprise platform. Reporting from sUAS News has documented licensing and supply‑chain links to DJI that drew congressional and regulatory scrutiny in 2024–25. In essence, the fight now brewing in court is over whether that kind of licensed, relabeled hardware is a safer alternative or just DJI by another name.
Why Regulators Are Watching
DJI itself has been hit with sweeping national‑security reviews, court rulings and legislative actions that have restricted how some of its products can be used or purchased in the United States. Those moves have squeezed buyers and vendors throughout the drone market.
The Verge has summarized key court decisions and the NDAA‑era review process that left DJI under stricter scrutiny and limitations. That regulatory pressure helps explain why public agencies and commercial operators started hunting for alternatives, and why Paxton’s office is now pressing the argument that licensing or rebranding cannot be used to skate around export or procurement restrictions.
Legal Stakes for Buyers and Agencies
If a Texas court grants Paxton the injunction he is seeking, state agencies and local governments could be forced to pause or reexamine any purchases or contracts tied to Anzu’s products. The complaint frames the case as both a consumer‑protection matter and a national‑security enforcement action.
Industry watchers caution that abrupt vendor shifts are rarely painless. Trade coverage from outlets such as DroneXL has chronicled how bans or rapid phase‑outs of major suppliers can leave public‑safety teams with capability gaps and steep replacement bills when they move away from large incumbent drone makers.
For now, the Anzu case serves as an early test of Paxton’s passthrough theory: the idea that licensing, rebranding or supply‑chain ties to a scrutinized foreign manufacturer can amount to deceptive practices under Texas law. The next key moves will come from Anzu’s formal legal response and any follow‑up actions from state or federal regulators.
