Acme Revival sues DJI over access to independent repair resources

Denver, CO — Denver-based Acme Revival has filed a lawsuit against SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd., alleging violations of Colorado’s Consumer Repair Bill of Rights Act and the Colorado Consumer Protection Act.

The complaint, filed September 16, 2026, in Denver District Court, concerns certain DJI-branded, non-aviation digital electronic products and Acme Revival’s efforts to obtain the parts, documentation, software, firmware, diagnostic tools, calibration resources, and other materials needed to diagnose, maintain, and repair the products independently.

According to the complaint, Acme sent DJI 13 separate, individualized written demands seeking repair materials needed to diagnose, maintain, or repair covered DJI products in Colorado.

The complaint states that each demand identified Acme as an independent repair facility located in Colorado and expressly cited Colorado’s Consumer Repair Bill of Rights Act and DJI’s obligations under that law.

Acme alleges that DJI did not provide a completed or substantive response to 11 of the 13 demands. According to the complaint, DJI either did not respond or initially indicated that it would get back to Acme and then did not provide a substantive response.

The complaint alleges that DJI provided two substantive responses and that both stated that the requested repair resources were limited to DJI-authorized service providers.

According to the complaint, DJI stated in one response that, under its global service policy, certain service manuals, schematic diagrams, boardviews, firmware tools, calibration utilities, and proprietary diagnostic software are made available exclusively to DJI-authorized service providers. The complaint states that DJI directed Acme to have its customer contact an authorized DJI service center.

In another response, according to the complaint, DJI stated that its position remained consistent and that replacement parts and assemblies, service documentation, diagnostic and calibration tools, firmware and provisioning processes, and related repair materials were made available only to DJI-authorized service providers.

Acme alleges that DJI acknowledged the applicability of local law, including Colorado law, but did not provide the requested repair materials, offer terms through which Acme could obtain them, or identify a process for obtaining qualifying repair resources as an independent repair provider.

The lawsuit concerns only certain stand-alone, non-aviation DJI products. The complaint expressly states that it does not seek repair access for drones, unmanned aircraft, aircraft systems, or other aviation equipment excluded from the Colorado statute.

According to the complaint, the covered products at issue may include non-aviation imaging, video, audio, stabilization, charging, connectivity, and related consumer or commercial electronic equipment.

The complaint alleges that these products may contain processors, circuit boards, sensors, camera or audio components, stabilization components, wireless communications hardware, power supplies, charging components, connectors, embedded software, firmware, and other electronic or mechanical components.

Acme states that the requested repairs concern the electronic, mechanical, software, firmware, or related functionality of the products.

The lawsuit also seeks to determine DJI’s legal responsibilities with respect to the manufacture, supply, possession, control, service, and repair-access functions associated with the covered products and their repair materials.

The complaint states that SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd. and affiliated DJI entities participate in various product, software, support, service, warranty, and repair functions, and alleges that the precise allocation of those responsibilities is primarily or uniquely within DJI’s possession and knowledge.

Acme alleges that DJI possesses, uses, controls, provides within its authorized service network, or can obtain technical documentation, diagnostic and calibration tools, replacement parts and assemblies, firmware and provisioning resources, service materials, warranty materials, and other resources relevant to diagnosing and correcting defects in covered products.

Colorado’s Consumer Repair Bill of Rights Act requires manufacturers of covered digital electronic equipment to make certain repair documentation, parts, embedded software, firmware, tools, and related resources available to owners and independent repair providers on fair and reasonable terms.

The provisions extending the law to covered digital electronic equipment became applicable January 1, 2026.

The complaint alleges that, to the extent DJI qualifies as a manufacturer under the statute and the products and requested materials fall within the law, restricting qualifying repair materials solely to DJI-authorized service providers violates Colorado’s Consumer Repair Bill of Rights Act and constitutes a deceptive trade practice under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act.

The lawsuit also asks the court to determine which non-aviation DJI products or product systems qualify as covered digital electronic equipment and which requested repair materials DJI is legally required to provide.

Acme alleges that directing product owners solely toward DJI-authorized service centers does not satisfy a covered manufacturer’s obligation to make qualifying repair materials available to an independent repair provider where Colorado law requires such access.

According to the complaint, DJI did not identify any particular requested part as unavailable to the original equipment manufacturer and did not identify a trade-secret limitation, privacy or anti-theft limitation, federal-law conflict, virtual-diagnostic limitation, or other statutory exemption as the reason for withholding any particular requested repair material.

The complaint further alleges that DJI described the challenged restriction as part of its “global service policy” and stated that its answer “remains consistent,” which Acme alleges indicates that the restrictions reflected an established repair-access policy rather than isolated support responses.

According to the complaint, restricting repair resources to an authorized service network can limit independent repair options and direct product owners toward manufacturer-controlled repair, service, replacement, or sales alternatives rather than independent repair.

Acme alleges that DJI’s conduct has prevented it from accepting, completing, or efficiently performing requested repairs.

Acme further alleges that it has suffered lost repair revenue, lost profits, wasted diagnostic, intake, research, administrative and communications time, lost repair opportunities, and harm to customer relationships and goodwill.

The complaint alleges that DJI continued applying its authorized-provider-only policy after receiving repeated written notice of Colorado law and that this conduct was willful, knowing, intentional, or in bad faith. Those allegations have not been adjudicated.

Through the lawsuit, Acme Revival seeks declarations concerning which non-aviation DJI products are covered by Colorado law, whether DJI qualifies as a manufacturer with respect to those products, and what qualifying repair materials DJI must make available to Acme on fair and reasonable terms and costs.

Acme also seeks a declaration that restricting qualifying repair materials solely to DJI-authorized service providers does not satisfy a covered manufacturer’s obligations under Colorado law and that directing owners solely to authorized DJI service centers does not itself satisfy an obligation to provide qualifying repair access to independent repair providers.

The lawsuit seeks permanent injunctive relief that, if Acme prevails and DJI is found legally responsible, would require DJI to make qualifying repair materials available on fair and reasonable terms and maintain a reasonable and functional process through which Acme can request, order, access, and receive those materials.

The requested relief also includes requiring DJI, where legally applicable, to maintain a functional communications process for repair-access requests, identify contractors through which qualifying materials are provided on DJI’s behalf, and refrain from restricting qualifying repair materials solely to authorized service providers where Colorado law requires independent access.

Acme also seeks actual or statutory damages available under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, including enhanced damages if bad-faith conduct is established by the required evidentiary standard, as well as attorney fees, costs, interest, and other legal or equitable relief available under Colorado law.

The case is Acme Revival, Inc. v. SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd., Case No. 2026CV33354

The allegations have not been adjudicated, and DJI will have an opportunity to respond.