Drone technology companies and online retailers are illegally marketing radio frequency jammers in the US, promoting them as drone deterrents or privacy tools. These devices, which send out competing radio signals to disrupt nearby electronics, have been prohibited by federal laws for decades. Despite regulatory crackdowns, interest in jammers persists due to their ability to keep away unwanted drones, disable security cameras, or block Wi-Fi networks. The sale of these devices sidesteps federal laws, posing a challenge to authorities trying to enforce the ban.

• FCC Warning: Is Your Signal Jammer Legal? Know the Risks!

FCC Warning: Is Your Signal Jammer Legal? Know the Risks!

Despite warnings from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding the dangers and illegality of signal jammers, some companies continue to market these devices online. The FCC has emphasized that jammers can interfere with emergency communications, disrupt regular phone usage, and cause unintended consequences such as confusing airport navigation systems. The manufacture, importation, sale, or even offering for sale of these jamming devices violates Section 302(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, according to the FCC. The commission maintains a strict stance against the use of jammers, stating that they pose significant risks to public safety and can potentially compromise other radio communications services. An FCC representative recently confirmed that the agency’s position on this matter remains unchanged, yet some businesses still choose to ignore these warnings and continue to market jammers online.

The Federal Communications Commission has issued a stern warning, following an NBC News report that exposed the widespread availability of signal jammers from various sources. These devices, which can disrupt drone operations, are being offered by a range of entities, including Amazon third-party sellers, Chinese-based online stores, and even small domestic companies specializing in drone equipment. Maverick Drone Systems, a Minnesota-based firm, is among those selling a portable anti-drone “RF jamming unit” priced at $2,999 on its website, with Tatusky, a China-based company, listed as the supplier. Described as “easy to use” and with a range of 1-2 kilometers, these jammers, which resemble shotguns, are accessible to anyone, as Maverick CEO Adam Shaw pointed out. In response to the report, an FCC spokesperson revealed on Wednesday that the commission has multiple ongoing investigations into these jammer sales, including those on Amazon, investigations that had not been previously disclosed to the public.

As drone warfare rises in Ukraine and Israel, large corporations and state agencies are preparing for potential domestic drone terrorism. Shaw, a signal jammer sales expert, revealed a growing interest in his products from these entities. However, he noted that due to the high price, most individual consumers remain uninterested. “Could drone attacks happen in your backyard? That’s a real concern for many,” Shaw said. Despite this interest, some jammer sales have fallen through after legal considerations from potential customers.

In controlled airspace, there’s a notable hesitation towards adopting anti-drone technology, despite a keen initial interest from IT departments of Fortune 500 companies. Shaw reveals that while many are eager to acquire such equipment, legal teams often raise concerns, leading to a halt in procurement. This reluctance stems from fears of potential interference, highlighting a significant hurdle in the widespread adoption of this tech. Shaw believes that until a serious event like a terrorist attack occurs, the sales of this technology might not reach its full potential. However, he remains unconcerned about his own liability under FCC rules, emphasizing that regulatory compliance is the manufacturers’ responsibility, not resellers like him.

A consumer expressed his belief that the products he purchases from overseas are endorsed by the government, suggesting that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) should take action by reaching out to manufacturers and halting the distribution of unauthorized devices. He emphasized that all such items should undergo approval prior to being made available to consumers. However, the FCC, when queried about specific sellers or marketers, including Maverick, chose not to provide any comment. Instead, in an email communication with NBC News, the commission directed attention to its policies, which are clearly stated on its official website. According to these policies, federal law prohibits the FCC from authorizing the use of jamming devices. The website explicitly states that jamming equipment, unlike other radio transmitting devices, cannot be sanctioned by the FCC due to its primary function of disrupting radio communications.

Recent searches by NBC News have revealed that nine independent sellers on Amazon are offering “jammer” devices, priced from just $25.63. These listings claim the devices can be used in various situations, including interfering with microphones. However, Robert McDowell, a former FCC commissioner and now a partner at the Cooley law firm, warns that such devices are illegal. He emphasizes that only authorized federal agencies can legally use radio frequency jamming devices, as they could be misused for nefarious purposes and cause widespread chaos. McDowell further cautions that there are legal risks associated with both importing and selling these devices. Customs officers may impound them at ports of entry, or the FCC may take action. He adds that retailers could face trouble if they’re selling devices not authorized by the FCC. It’s noteworthy that all nine sellers on Amazon described themselves as based in China, indicating a potential international dimension to this issue.

NBC News received messages from several sellers who declined to share additional information beyond their product pages regarding signal jammers. One seller, however, confirmed their willingness to ship the “jammer” to California, stating that “US customers can buy it.” Without purchasing or testing the devices, NBC News cannot independently verify the accuracy of the product descriptions provided by the sellers. It’s noteworthy that some Amazon product listings portrayed radio frequency jammers as commonplace items, rather than highly regulated products, suggesting their suitability for various settings such as confidential meetings, business negotiations, schools, hospitals, and research centers. Nevertheless, some Amazon customers expressed skepticism, with some reviewers describing the products as mere white-noise machines overhyped as jammers, and at least one person flagging a device as illegal.

Last month, a customer pointed out in a review that an “illegal device” was being sold on Amazon, prompting a swift response from the Seattle-based retailer. Within just two days of being contacted by NBC News, Amazon had removed all nine listings for signal jamming devices, which violate its policies. The online giant confirmed in an email that it strictly prohibits the sale of jamming devices and is constantly monitoring its platform to prevent banned items from being listed by third-party sellers. However, Amazon did not elaborate on how these nine sellers managed to circumvent its monitoring system. Meanwhile, on eBay, three sellers recently offered products described as jammers. But upon investigation, eBay clarified that these were actually legal white-noise machines or similar audio blockers, distinct from the radio signal jammers prohibited by the FCC.

Searches on Google’s shopping site revealed links to numerous signal jamming devices, including those marketed as anti-drone measures. Google directs customers to third-party sellers, often China-based electronics retailers, rather than handling sales directly. These retailers typically advertise their willingness to ship to the US, without specifying the products’ use for military or law enforcement. One such seller even uploaded a YouTube video showcasing how their device can disrupt mobile signals. In response to NBC News’ inquiry, Google is removing listings that breach its policies against promoting or selling these devices. eBay, on the other hand, emphasizes its dedication to safety and legality, striving to maintain a secure and dynamic marketplace by ensuring all goods sold on its platform adhere to these standards. The Federal Communications Commission has issued warnings regarding signal jamming devices, highlighting their potential to cause harm and disruption to wireless communications.

One online retailer, claiming to be a global leader in signal jammer manufacturing, operates with anonymity, revealing no hints of its actual location. Despite numerous attempts, they remain silent on our inquiries. Their website’s FAQ section reassuringly states that they’ve never encountered customs confiscating their packages, yet the true extent of illegal radio frequency jammer purchases from their and other similar platforms remains unknown. These companies often emphasize selling to international customers, potentially evading strict regulations like those of the FCC in the U.S.

Searching for radio signal jammers? Military suppliers, government contractors, and specialized companies cater to specific non-consumer needs. While they showcase products on their websites, pricing and direct purchase options remain undisclosed. Instead, interested parties can “request consultation” or “connect with an expert” for further information. When exploring signal jammers, it’s crucial to be aware of FCC advisories on enforcement and a 2020 federal interagency advisory on drone defense, highlighting the legal and regulatory framework surrounding these devices.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has issued warnings regarding the unauthorized sale and marketing of signal jammers, with investigations currently underway targeting several retailers including Amazon. This development comes in the wake of a report published by NBC News on Wednesday, which prompted the FCC to reveal that it had received inquiries related to jammer marketing practices. According to FCC spokesperson Jonathan Uriarte, the commission is actively probing potential violations of its rules by retailers offering equipment without the proper FCC authorization. Amazon, specifically, has been named as one of the entities under investigation, although the company has not yet responded to requests for comment on the matter. The FCC’s strict stance on radio frequency jammers is not new, having previously imposed heavy fines on violators. Notably, in 2016, the FCC slapped a $34.9 million penalty on Chinese online retailer CTS Technology for illegally marketing hundreds of jammer models over a two-year period, some of which were sold to undercover FCC staff.

According to an NBC News review, Chinese retailers are still offering radio frequency jammers to Americans online, despite no comparable fines being issued since. However, it remains unclear if any of these devices have been shipped to the US. In recent years, the FCC has also cracked down on buyers, with a Dallas warehouse operator fined $22,000 in 2018 for using a jammer to prevent employees from using phones at work. A Florida man was also fined $48,000 in 2016 for using a jamming device during his commute to block cellphone use in other vehicles. Marriott even agreed to pay $600,000 in 2014 to resolve allegations of jamming non-Marriott Wi-Fi signals at one of its properties in Nashville, Tennessee. The FCC continues to monitor and penalize the use and sale of signal jamming devices in the US.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has shifted its priorities in recent years, with a stronger focus on issues like combating robocalls, as observed by Dale Hatfield, a former chief engineer at the agency. Hatfield, who is now an adjunct professor at the University of Colorado Boulder, pointed out that the FCC’s enforcement actions seem to be increasingly directed towards matters that are more visible to consumers. However, he noted that illegal signal jamming remains a challenging problem to address. Due to the often brief and elusive nature of signal interference, it is difficult to ascertain the magnitude of the issue and even harder for the FCC to pursue jamming cases. “The interference can be very intermittent, making it hard to trace back and identify the cause,” Hatfield explained. Meanwhile, McDowell, a former FCC commissioner, emphasized that the commission’s enforcement efforts are largely influenced by the types of complaints it receives.

On Reddit, users of Ring doorbell cameras voice concerns about jammers being used to disable their devices during thefts, ironically noting Amazon’s dual role as both the parent company of Ring and a marketplace selling these jamming devices. The FCC typically steps in when such issues are brought to their attention, yet Amazon remains silent on the matter. Jamming devices, which can be used for various purposes like disrupting Wi-Fi networks or drones, are now being exploited to avoid detection while stealing, raising questions about the security of Ring cameras and Amazon’s responsibility in this emerging issue.

Jammers, often discussed in forums by those who fear government surveillance, have sparked controversy. Large organizations, concerned about drone terrorism, eye radio frequency jammers as potential anti-drone solutions, yet their use remains legally prohibited. Last year, four top sports leagues, including the NFL, petitioned Congress to permit state and local police to deploy anti-drone measures. Officials from certain prisons have also expressed their desire for legal authorization to utilize jammers, aiming to halt inmate cellphone usage. However, the Federal Communications Commission has issued warnings regarding the use of signal jamming devices, due to their potential to disrupt critical communications services.

Drone defense company IXI Electronic Warfare highlights drones as potential threats to sports stadiums, prisons, and airports, offering a radio frequency jammer named Dronekiller to swiftly neutralize such threats. However, stadium operators, prisons, and airport authorities in the U.S. generally lack the legal authority to purchase such devices. This limitation exists because, under current law, only a few government agencies like the FBI, Department of Homeland Security, Energy, and Defense departments are authorized to buy and use radio frequency jammers. As a result, companies specializing in drone countermeasures often target foreign buyers, where regulations are more relaxed. IXI Electronic Warfare, based in California, confirms this trend, stating that most of their focus is overseas while also offering sales in the U.S.

Zachary Kallenborn, an expert in anti-drone countermeasures from the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, expressed concerns about the potential widespread use of radio frequency jammers in the U.S. These devices, which are currently only authorized for use by federal agencies, have the ability to interfere with a wide range of sensitive systems, including civilian flight control and hospital communications. Kallenborn believes that it is prudent to exercise caution in allowing these devices to be freely used, due to the potential risks they pose.