Relief for Remote ID: The FAA Extends Compliance Deadline for Drone Operators
Client Alert | 1 min read | 09.15.23
With days to spare, the FAA has officially extended the deadline for drone operators in the U.S. to comply with Remote ID equipage and transmission requirements by six (6) months, until March 16, 2024. The original compliance date of September 16, 2023 was seen as unattainable by many drone operators due to the FAA’s slow approval of manufacturer Declarations of Compliance and unavailability of software updates from manufacturers.
The FAA has made clear that this is the last extension that will be granted, and that operators who remain non-compliant by March 16, 2024 could be subject to enforcement action in the form of monetary fines and suspension or revocation of pilot certificates. Therefore, operators should continue to work diligently to comply, despite this extension.
Additional coverage on Remote ID for manufacturers and operators can be found here and here.
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 08.07.25
On July 25, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision in United States ex. rel. Sedona Partners LLC v. Able Moving & Storage Inc. et al., holding that a district court cannot ignore new factual allegations included in an amended complaint filed by a False Claims Act qui tam relator based on the fact that those additional facts were learned in discovery, even while a motion to dismiss for failure to comply with the heightened pleading standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) is pending. Under Rule 9(b), allegations of fraud typically must include factual support showing the who, what, where, why, and how of the fraud to survive a defendant’s motion to dismiss. And while that standard has not changed, Sedona gives room for a relator to file first and seek out discovery in order to amend an otherwise deficient complaint and survive a motion to dismiss, at least in the Eleventh Circuit. Importantly, however, the Eleventh Circuit clarified that a district court retains the discretion to dismiss a relator’s complaint before or after discovery has begun, meaning that district courts are not required to permit discovery at the pleading stage. Nevertheless, the Sedona decision is an about-face from precedent in the Eleventh Circuit, and many other circuits, where, historically, facts learned during discovery could not be used to circumvent Rule 9(b) by bolstering a relator’s factual allegations while a motion to dismiss was pending. While the long-term effects of the decision remain to be seen, in the short term the decision may encourage relators to engage in early discovery in hopes of learning facts that they can use to survive otherwise meritorious motions to dismiss.
Client Alert | 4 min read | 08.06.25
FinCEN Delays Implementation Date and Reopens AML/CFT Rule for Investment Advisers
Client Alert | 4 min read | 08.06.25
Series of Major Data Breaches Targeting the Insurance Industry
Client Alert | 11 min read | 08.06.25