Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-101

Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, DC 20554

In the Matter of )
)
ABC Fulfillment Services LLC d/b/a HobbyKing ) File No.: EB-SED-17-00023762
USA LLC and HobbyKing.com; and Indubitably, ) NAL/Acct. No.: 201832100015
Inc. d/b/a HobbyKing Corp., HobbyKing USA ) FRN: 0027528975
LLC, HobbyKing, and HobbyKing.com

FORFEITURE ORDER

Adopted: July 22, 2020 Released: July 23, 2020

By the Commission: Commissioner O’Rielly issuing a statement.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Heading Paragraph #

I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 1
II. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................... 5
III. DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................................................... 12
A. HobbyKing Marketed Unauthorized Equipment ........................................................................... 13
B. HobbyKing Had Notice of the Authorization Requirements ......................................................... 17
C. The Fifth Amendment Did Not Relieve HobbyKing of its Duty to Respond to the LOI .............. 24
D. The Proposed Forfeiture Amount Is Appropriate .......................................................................... 27
1. Inability to Pay ........................................................................................................................ 29
2. Other Downward Adjustment Factors ..................................................................................... 32
3. Comparison to Other Forfeitures ............................................................................................. 38
IV. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................... 40
V. ORDERING CLAUSES....................................................................................................................... 41

I. INTRODUCTION
1. The Commission’s equipment authorization and marketing rules are designed to ensure
that equipment in the wireless ecosystem operates in a manner that minimizes the risks of harmful
interference. Unauthorized radio frequency equipment poses a serious threat to any number of important
uses of spectrum, including aviation safety, weather radar, and public safety communications, because
unauthorized and untested devices may not adhere to the technical requirements we have developed to
prevent interference to other devices and services.
2. In this Forfeiture Order, we issue a fine of $2,861,128 against ABC Fulfillment Services
LLC and Indubitably, Inc., d/b/a HobbyKing (collectively, HobbyKing or Company) for persistently
violating the Commission’s rules intended to ensure that radio frequency devices are properly authorized,
and for failing to respond to Commission orders in the investigation of the company’s practices. For
years, HobbyKing advertised and sold on its website to U.S. consumers dozens of models of audio/video
transmitters (AV transmitters) for use with unmanned aircraft systems (drones) without regard to whether
those AV transmitters were compliant with the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), or the
Commission’s rules.1 Several of these models were capable of operating in spectrum bands used by, and

1
Any entity that is a “Small Business Concern” as defined in the Small Business Act (Pub. L. 85-536, as amended)
may avail itself of rights set forth in that Act, including rights set forth in 15 U.S.C. § 657, “Oversight of Regulatory
Enforcement,” in addition to other rights set forth herein.
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-101

causing interference to, important Federal government systems. Some of the device models operated at
power levels above those permitted in the Commission’s rules.
3. The Commission’s Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) undertook an investigation of these
devices and HobbyKing’s marketing practices, and HobbyKing repeatedly failed to respond fully to the
Commission’s requests for information. On June 5, 2018, we issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture (NAL) against HobbyKing for these apparent violations.2 In its response to the NAL,
HobbyKing did not contest that it marketed devices without equipment certifications or that it failed to
respond fully to the Bureau. Instead, HobbyKing raised several unpersuasive legal challenges. We find
no reason to cancel, withdraw, or reduce the penalty we proposed in the NAL, and we therefore assess the
full $2,861,128 forfeiture.
4. We also warn HobbyKing that continued failure to comply with the equipment marketing
requirements is likely to be met with additional sanctions. The Company’s pledge to use “best efforts”
not to market additional noncompliant products identified by the Bureau is not sufficient. Simply put,
HobbyKing must comply with the equipment marketing requirements for all the radio frequency devices
it markets.
II. BACKGROUND
5. Legal Framework. The Act and the Commission’s equipment marketing rules
collectively require that marketers of radio frequency devices ensure, prior to advertising or selling such
devices, that they will not cause harmful interference to authorized radio communication devices.3
Specifically, section 302(b) of the Act provides that “[n]o person shall manufacture, import, sell, offer for
sale, or ship devices or home electronic equipment and systems, or use devices, which fail to comply with
regulations promulgated pursuant to this section.”4 The Commission has long-standing regulations,
including technical, authorization, and other requirements, designed to prevent interference from devices
that emit radio frequency energy.
6. Most pertinent to this case, section 2.803(b) of the Commission’s rules prohibits the
marketing of radio frequency devices unless the device has first been properly authorized, identified, and
labeled in accordance with the Commission’s rules.5 Electronic devices that intentionally emit radio
frequency energy, called “intentional radiators,” must be authorized through a certification procedure
before they can be marketed to U.S. consumers.6
7. Factual Background. HobbyKing is the trade name of several affiliated companies that,
through HobbyKing.com, market drone accessories, including audio/video transmitters.7 HobbyKing has
a New York Office and customer service operations in the United States.8
8. After receiving complaints about HobbyKing’s equipment marketing, the Bureau’s
Spectrum Enforcement Division (Division) first investigated the Company practices in 2016. The
Division issued a citation (Marketing Citation) against HobbyKing for marketing AV transmitters that

2
The NAL includes a more complete discussion of the facts and history of this case and is incorporated herein by
reference. See ABC Fulfillment Services LLC d/b/a HobbyKing USA LLC and HobbyKing.com, and Indubitably,
Inc. d/b/a/ HobbyKing Corp., HobbyKing USA LLC, HobbyKing and HobbyKing.com, Notice of Apparent Liability
for Forfeiture, 33 FCC Rcd 5530 (2018) (NAL).
3
47 U.S.C. § 302a(b); 47 CFR § 2.803(b)-(c).
4
47 U.S.C. § 302a(b).
5
See 47 CFR § 2.803(b).
6
Id. § 15.201(b).
7
NAL, 33 FCC Rcd at 5530-31, paras. 2-3.
8
Id. at 5530, para. 2 (citing HobbyKing’s career website).

2
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-101

were noncompliant.9 This Marketing Citation identified the equipment marketing rules to HobbyKing
and warned the Company that, if it continued to market noncompliant radio frequency devices, it could
face significant civil fines.10
9. Following further complaints that HobbyKing continued to market noncompliant radio
frequency devices, the Division initiated a second investigation in 2017. HobbyKing did not respond in
full to the Letter of Inquiry (LOI), providing information only on the four AV transmitters specifically
identified in the LOI. The Company was silent, however, concerning the Division’s questions about the
other AV transmitters listed on HobbyKing’s website, arguing instead that it was not marketing AV
transmitters in the United States.11 The Division issued another citation against HobbyKing (Letter of
Inquiry Citation), this one for its refusal to fully respond to requests for information in the second
investigation.12
10. On June 5, 2018, the Commission issued the NAL, proposing a $2,861,128 forfeiture
penalty against HobbyKing for its apparent willful and repeated violations of section 302 of the Act,13
section 2.803 of the Commission’s rules,14 and two Commission orders15 by marketing noncompliant
radio frequency devices and by refusing to provide full responses to Commission inquiries in the
investigation.16 Despite HobbyKing’s failure to respond fully to the LOI, the second investigation
revealed that the Company apparently had continued to market many noncompliant AV transmitters after
the Division issued the Marketing Citation.17 Specifically, HobbyKing apparently continued to market 65

9
See HobbyKing USA LLC, Citation and Order, 31 FCC Rcd 12581 (EB 2016); see also NAL, 33 FCC Rcd at 5531,
para. 4. The Act generally requires that the Commission first issue non-monetary citations to entities that have
violated a statutory provision or rule but do not hold FCC licenses or authorizations. Only after the entity has
received this form of a warning and yet persists in the conduct may the Commission pursue a monetary penalty. See
47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(5).
10
See Marketing Citation, 31 FCC Rcd at 12581, para. 1 (“This CITATION AND ORDER (Citation) notifies
HobbyKing USA LLC (HobbyKing) that it marketed radio frequency (RF) devices in the United States in violation
of the Commission’s equipment authorization and labeling requirements.”); id. at 12581, para. 2 (“If HobbyKing
subsequently engages in any conduct of the type this Citation describes — and specifically any violation of Section
302(b) of the Act and Sections 2.803 and 2.925 of the Rules — it may be subject to civil penalties, including but not
limited to, substantial monetary forfeitures and/or seizures of equipment.”).
11
NAL, 33 FCC Rcd at 5532, para. 5 & n.13-14.
12
See ABC Fulfillment Services LLC d/b/a HobbyKing USA LLC and HobbyKing.com; and Indubitably, Inc. d/b/a
HobbyKing Corp., HobbyKing USA LLC, HobbyKing, and HobbyKing.com, Citation and Order, 32 FCC Rcd 7300
(EB 2017); NAL, 33 FCC Rcd at 5531-33, paras. 4-6.
13
47 U.S.C. § 302a.
14
47 CFR § 2.803.
15
See generally Marketing Citation; Letter of Inquiry Citation. Section 4(i) authorizes the Commission to “issue
such orders, not inconsistent with this Act as may be necessary in the execution of its functions.” 47 U.S.C.
§ 154(i). Section 4(j) states that “[t]he Commission may conduct its proceedings in such manner as will best
conduce to the proper dispatch of business and to the ends of justice.” 47 U.S.C. § 154(j). Section 403 grants the
Commission both the authority to institute inquiries and “the power to make and enforce any order or orders”
relating to its inquiries into compliance with the Act. 47 U.S.C. § 403. Section 0.111(a)(17) of the Commission’s
rules delegates this authority to the Bureau. 47 CFR § 0.111(a)(17) (granting the Enforcement Bureau the authority
to “[i]dentify and analyze complaint information, conduct investigations, conduct external audits and collect
information, including pursuant to sections 218, 220, 308(b), 403 and 409(e) through (k) of the Communications
Act, in connection with complaints, on its own initiative or upon request of another Bureau or Office.”).
16
NAL, 33 FCC Rcd at 5537-38, para. 15 & n.54-55.
17
Id. at 5532, para. 6.

3
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-101

uncertified AV transmitter models on its website.18 Twelve of those models operated in restricted
frequency bands that are reserved for federal uses and threatened to interfere with critical Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) systems and other important federal operations.19 Three models operated
at power levels exceeding Commission limits and could interfere with FAA terminal doppler weather
radar.20 We upwardly adjusted the proposed base forfeiture amount for the marketing violations because
HobbyKing apparently had: (a) long marketed noncompliant devices; (b) intentionally marketed devices
which could not be certified because of their operating frequencies; and (c) for some of the devices,
advertised and sold equipment that presented an egregious threat to public safety.21 In addition, we
upwardly adjusted the proposed forfeiture amount for HobbyKing’s apparent violations that related to its
failure to fully respond to the LOI based on HobbyKing’s egregious behavior in refusing to cooperate in
the investigation after being given numerous opportunities to cure its failure to respond.22 In sum,
HobbyKing’s apparent violations and accompanying conduct justified a significant proposed forfeiture in
the NAL.
11. On July 5, 2018, HobbyKing filed a response to the NAL, making a number of arguments
as to why the NAL should be canceled or the forfeiture amount reduced.23 First, HobbyKing claims that
the Commission does not have marketing rules that specifically address so-called “versatile” drone
equipment that can operate on both amateur and non-amateur frequencies.24 Second, the Company claims
that it had no notice that marketing AV transmitters that could operate on unauthorized frequencies was
unlawful.25 Third, HobbyKing claims that the requirement to fully respond to the LOI violated the
Company’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.26 Fourth, HobbyKing asserts that the
forfeiture amount should be reduced based on various downward adjustment factors, including inability to
pay.27 In response to the directive in the NAL to cease marketing noncompliant devices, HobbyKing
claims that it no longer sells the 65 models identified in the NAL. The Company also stated that it will
use “best efforts” to avoid marketing other noncompliant devices that the Bureau identified in an
enforcement advisory issued the same day as the NAL.28
III. DISCUSSION
12. In this Forfeiture Order, we find that HobbyKing violated the Act and the Commission’s
rules by marketing 65 models of noncompliant radio frequency accessories on its website and by failing
to respond to Commission orders issued during the investigation. The Commission proposed a forfeiture

18
Id.; see also id. at 5541-42, para. 23.
19
Id.
20
Id.
21
Id. at 5540-42, paras. 22-24.
22
Id. at 5542, para. 25.
23
ABC Fulfillment Services LLC and Indubitably, Inc., Response to Notice of Apparent Liability (July 5, 2018) (on
file in EB-SED-17-00023762) (NAL Response).
24
NAL Response at 6-7.
25
See id. at 9.
26
See id. at 13.
27
See id. at 18.
28
Id. at 23; see also Drone Audio/Video Transmitter Accessories Must Comply with the Commission’s Rules to be
Marketed to U.S. Customers, Enforcement Advisory, 33 FCC Rcd 5321 (EB 2018) (AV Transmitter Enforcement
Advisory).

4
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-101

in this case in accordance with section 503(b) of the Act,29 section 1.80 of the Commission’s rules,30 and
the Commission’s Forfeiture Policy Statement.31 When we assess forfeitures, section 503(b)(2)(E)
requires that we take into account the “nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and,
with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and
such other matters as justice may require.”32 We have fully considered HobbyKing’s response to the
NAL, which does not contest any facts and includes only a variety of legal arguments, none of which we
find persuasive. We therefore adopt the $2,861,128 forfeiture penalty proposed in the NAL.
A. HobbyKing Marketed Unauthorized Equipment
13. AV transmitters, such as the 65 models of AV transmitters marketed by HobbyKing, are
radio frequency devices subject to the Commission’s equipment marketing rules. These AV transmitters
are radio frequency devices because they are “capable of emitting radiofrequency energy by radiation,
conduction, or other means.”33 More specifically, the AV transmitters are intentional radiators because
they “intentionally generate[] and emit[] radio frequency energy by radiation or induction.”34 Intentional
radiators must be certified before they can be marketed to U.S. consumers.35 HobbyKing marketed each
of the 65 equipment models at issue to United States consumers.36 No certification exists for the 65 AV
transmitter models at issue and HobbyKing does not argue otherwise.37
14. The Commission has consistently stated that devices that do not operate solely on
amateur frequencies require authorization. Sixteen years ago, in Pilot Travel, the Commission fined a
marketer that offered for sale non-certified transmitters because, although the transmitters operated in the
amateur band, they were “equipped with rotary, toggle, or pushbutton switches mounted externally on the
unit, which allow[ed] operation in the [Citizens Band] bands after completion of minor and trivial internal
modifications to the equipment.”38 Because the transmitters could easily operate off the amateur bands,
the transmitters required certification under the Commission’s general marketing and CB rules.39 Even
before that time, the Commission publicly explained that “[d]evices used in the Amateur Radio Service
do not require authorization prior to being imported into the United States, but devices for other services,

29
47 U.S.C. § 503(b).
30
47 CFR § 1.80.
31
The Commission’s Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the
Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997) (Forfeiture Policy Statement), recons. denied,
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999).
32
47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(E).
33
47 CFR § 2.801.
34
Id. § 15.3(o).
35
Id. § 15.201.
36
See NAL, 33 FCC Rcd at 5536, para. 12. Notably, HobbyKing did not claim in its NAL Response, as it previously
had, that it was not marketing AV transmitters in the United States.
37
To the extent that the manufacturer, not HobbyKing, may be the party responsible for obtaining the equipment
certification, the Commission provided notice to HobbyKing of its responsibilities to comply with the equipment
marketing laws when the Bureau issued the Marketing Citation to HobbyKing. We address HobbyKing’s lack of
notice arguments below. See Section III.B.
38
Pilot Travel Centers, LLC, Notice of Apparent Liability, 19 FCC Rcd 23113, 23114, paras. 3-4 (2004) (Pilot
Travel NAL), Order and Consent Decree, 21 FCC Rcd 5308 (2006); see also NAL, 33 FCC Rcd at 5534-35, paras. 8-
9 (collecting cases that state devices operating both on and off amateur frequencies require authorization).
39
Pilot Travel NAL, 19 FCC Rcd at 23116, para. 11.

5
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-101

including the CB service, require Commission approval.”40 These Commission actions provided long-
standing notice to entities like HobbyKing that, if a radio frequency device operates both on and off
amateur frequencies, the device requires Commission approval.41 Thus, pursuant to the Act, the
Commission’s rules, and FCC precedent, the AV transmitters models at issue required certification. Yet
they had none, making them noncompliant. Accordingly, HobbyKing could not market them in the
United States.
15. HobbyKing mistakenly claims the Commission needed to adopt equipment marketing
rules that specifically address equipment designed to operate as drone accessories, both within the
amateur radio service bands and outside of them (which the Company dubs “versatile” equipment) in
order to take enforcement action against HobbyKing.42 Contrary to HobbyKing’s assertion, the
requirement that AV transmitters obtain equipment authorization applies to all intentional radiators. The
Commission’s rules explicitly state that, “[u]nless specifically exempted, the . . . marketing of an
intentional or unintentional radiator that is not in compliance with the administrative and technical
provisions in this part, including prior equipment authorization . . . is prohibited under section 302 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and subpart I of part 2 of this chapter.” 43 Moreover, although
devices that operate purely in amateur radio service bands are exempt from the authorization
requirement,44 it is well established that no similar exemption extends to devices that can operate on both
amateur and non-amateur frequencies, whether described as “versatile” or not. Taken to its logical
extreme, HobbyKing’s argument would allow any intentional radiator to avoid the authorization steps by
simply including the capability to operate on amateur frequencies. That result would render meaningless
the Commission’s regulations.

40
Letter from Christopher Wright, General Counsel, FCC to John Atwood, Chief, Intellectual Property Rights, U.S.
Customs Service, 14 FCC Rcd 7797 (OGC 1999) (emphasis added).
41
NAL Response at 11. The 1999 letter is focused on CB radios, but also states generally applicable principles
regarding radio frequency devices that require Commission approval.
42
NAL Response at 6-7.
43
47 CFR § 15.1(c). Section 2.803 of the Commission’s rules is in subpart I of part 2 of chapter I of Title 47 of the
Code of Federal Regulations. See also 47 CFR § 2.901(a) (“The technical standards applicable to individual types
of equipment are found in that part of the rules governing the service wherein the equipment is to be operated. In
addition to the technical standards provided, the rules governing the service may require that such equipment …
receive a grant of certification from a Telecommunication Certification Body.”).
HobbyKing also argues that a rulemaking on small drone operation by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
shows that the Commission should similarly initiate a rulemaking on drone equipment authorization, and by
implication, the failure of the Commission to do so means that drone equipment is unregulated. NAL Response at 6.
Congress directed the Secretary of Transportation to initiate a rulemaking on small drone operation in the FAA
Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. Pub. L. 112-95, § 332(b), 126 Stat. 11, 74 (codified at 49 U.S.C. § 40101
note). In contrast, Congress has not directed the Commission to initiate a rulemaking on the authorization of drone
equipment. Such argument also ignores the Commission’s long-standing existing general rules on radio frequency
equipment authorization that already cover devices intentionally emitting radio frequency energy like the AV
transmitters.
44
See 47 CFR § 97.301(a) (listing amateur frequency bands). WTB, PSHSB, & OET Provide Reminder of Jan. 1,
2013 Deadline for Transition to Narrowband Operations in the 150-174 Mhz & 421-470 Mhz Bands, Public Notice,
27 FCC Rcd 14896, 14900 n.18 (2012) (“Equipment approval generally is not required for Part 97 equipment.”);
Facilitating Opportunities for Flexible, Efficient, and Reliable Spectrum Use Employing Cognitive Radio
Technologies, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 8053, 8058 para. 16 (2007) (amateur equipment is
exempt from certification); Pilot Travel NAL, 19 FCC Rcd at 23114, paras. 3-4 (“[R]adio transmitting equipment
that transmits solely on Amateur Radio Service (‘ARS’) frequencies is not subject to equipment authorization
requirements prior to manufacture or marketing.”) (emphasis added).

6
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-101

16. In its NAL Response, HobbyKing claims that it has ceased marketing the 65 models
identified in the NAL, but promises only to make “best efforts” not to market other noncompliant radio
frequency devices identified in the AV Transmitter Enforcement Advisory.45 Despite the Company’s
claims to the contrary, the Commission is not required to identify for HobbyKing each individual model
that requires authorization. Rather, HobbyKing has a continuing obligation to market only radio
frequency equipment that is properly authorized. We therefore remind HobbyKing that continuing to
market noncompliant radio frequency devices could result in further significant forfeitures.
B. HobbyKing Had Notice of the Authorization Requirements
17. We reject HobbyKing’s assertion that it lacked fair notice of its legal obligations.46
Generally, regulatory requirements must be reasonably ascertainable before they can be enforced.47 In
this instance, HobbyKing had ample notice that the Commission’s long-standing equipment authorization
regulations apply to a radio frequency device that intentionally emits radio frequency energy and can
operate on both amateur and non-amateur frequencies. These requirements have been clear and
consistent for decades, and the Bureau twice put HobbyKing on notice by serving citations warning about
the very same requirements.
18. The plain language of section 302 of the Act and the implementing sections of the
Commission’s rules provide sufficient notice that radio frequency devices are subject to regulation by the
Commission, including authorization requirements.48 Section 302 of the Act states that the Commission
may issue rules on radio frequency devices and that “[n]o person shall manufacture, import, sell, offer for
sale, or ship devices or home electronic equipment and systems, or use devices, which fail to comply with
regulations promulgated pursuant to this section.”49 In turn, the Commission has promulgated a number
of rules in part 2 and part 15 in Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations regulating radio frequency
devices, including a prohibition on marketing radio frequency devices unless they comply with the
specific administrative requirements.50
19. Commission precedent on equipment authorization requirements for devices that operate
on both amateur and other frequencies dates as far back as 1999, and has not changed in any material way
since then.51 HobbyKing argues that the NAL did not provide sufficient notice of any such regulation,

45
NAL Response at 23-24, Attach. A, para. 2; see also AV Transmitter Enforcement Advisory.
46
See NAL Response at 9 (claiming the forfeiture should be canceled because the Company did not have fair notice
that it was prohibited from marketing noncompliant AV transmitters).
47
See FCC v. Fox Tel. Stations, Inc., 567 U.S. 239, 253 (2012) (identifying two due process concerns: “first, that
regulated parties should know what is required of them so they may act accordingly; second, precision and guidance
are necessary so that those enforcing the law do not act in an arbitrary or discriminatory way”) (citing Grayned v.
City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108-09 (1972)); see also Keeffe v. Library of Congress, 777 F.2d 1573, 1581 (D.C.
Cir. 1985); United States v. Lachman, 387 F.3d 42, 58 (1st Cir. 2004) (“These [‘ascertainable certainty’] cases,
however, do not stand for the proposition that any ambiguity in a regulation bars punishment.”); see also Suburban
Air Freight, Inc. v. Transp. Sec. Admin., 716 F.3d 679, 684 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (fair warning cases are a “very limited
set of cases”).
48
Gen. Elec. Co. v. EPA, 53 F.3d 1324, 1329 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (“If, by reviewing the regulations and other public
statements issued by the agency, a regulated party acting in good faith would be able to identify, with ‘ascertainable
certainty,’ the standards with which the agency expects parties to conform, then the agency has fairly notified a
petitioner of the agency's interpretation.”); see, e.g., Keeffe v. Library of Cong., 777 F.2d 1573, 1581 (D.C. Cir.
1985).
49
47 U.S.C. §§ 302a(a)-(b).
50
47 CFR §§ 2.803, 15.201.
51
See supra para. 14 (describing a 1999 Commission letter that stated that a device that could operate both on and
off amateur frequencies required certification).

7
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-101

because section 2.803 of the Commission’s rules “says nothing” about authorization for devices that
operate on both amateur and other frequencies.52 This argument is misplaced. The Commission’s rules
are clear that any intentional radiator is subject to equipment-authorization requirements unless an
exception applies. The Commission has excepted only devices that operate solely on amateur
frequencies. Moreover, the Commission has given manufacturers and marketers no reason to believe that
a device that is capable of operating on non-amateur frequencies would be exempt. Rather, our rules state
that radio frequency devices that operate in multiple bands must meet the rules for each band.53 And our
precedent is consistent: the Bureau has investigated and taken action against companies for marketing
similar equipment that can operate both on and off amateur frequency bands.54
20. In addition, the Marketing Citation issued to HobbyKing in 2016 put HobbyKing on
notice that it must seek authorization for the AV transmitters and stop marketing those that had no
authorization.55 A citation is intended to put an entity that “does not hold a license, permit, certificate, or
other authorization issued by the Commission” on notice that its actions have violated the Act or the
Commission’s rules.56 The Marketing Citation found that two models of AV transmitters marketed by
HobbyKing required certification and labeling, and it warned HobbyKing that the Commission might
impose future sanctions on the Company if it continued its practices.57 Yet HobbyKing continued to
market one of the AV transmitters, and so that model was included in the NAL.58 More broadly, as stated
in the Marketing Citation, “HobbyKing is hereby on notice that it must comply with Section 302(b) of the
Act and Sections 2.803 and 2.925 of the Commission’s rules (Rules).”59 The Marketing Citation further
warned that “[i]f HobbyKing subsequently engages in any conduct of the type this Citation describes—
and specifically any violation of Section 302(b) of the Act and Sections 2.803 and 2.925 of the Rules—it
may be subject to civil penalties, including but not limited to, substantial monetary forfeitures and/or
seizures of equipment.”60 Despite this clear notice, HobbyKing continued to market noncompliant radio

52
NAL Response at 10.
53
See 47 CFR § 2.947(f); see also OET Knowledge Database Publication Number 149672, Transmitter Devices
Certified Under Multiple Rule Parts (Dec. 8, 2017),
https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/kdb/forms/FTSSearchResultPage.cfm?switch=P&id=20643.
54
See Iftron Techs., Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 24 FCC Rcd 8802, 8804, para. 5 (EB 2009)
(Iftron) (paid); New Generation Hobbies, Citation, 26 FCC Rcd 9468, 9471 n.23 (EB 2011) (New Generation
Hobbies); Pilot Travel NAL, 19 FCC Rcd at 23114, para. 2.
55
See Marketing Citation. HobbyKing claims the Marketing Citation has the same notice issues as the NAL because
it did not identify a regulation. NAL Response at 13. We reject that argument again because section 302 of the Act
and the related Commission rules provide appropriate notice. Moreover, HobbyKing did not raise that issue at the
time in its response to the Marketing Citation.
56
47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(5); see also Pilot Travel NAL, 19 FCC Rcd at 23117, para. 17 (“These Citations put Pilot on
actual notice that marketing of this equipment is unlawful, yet Pilot intentionally continued to market the unlawful
equipment.”).
57
Marketing Citation, 31 FCC Rcd at 12582-83, paras. 6, 15.
58
HobbyKing continued to market the AV transmitter listed as the OrangeRX DSMX DSM2 Compatible 2.4Ghz
Transmitter Module V1.2 (JR/Turnigy/Taranis compatible). See Marketing Citation, 31 FCC Rcd at 12581, para. 2;
NAL, Appendix A.
59
Marketing Citation, 31 FCC Rcd at 12581, para. 2 (citing 47 U.S.C. § 302a(b); 47 CFR §§ 2.803, 2.925).
60
Id.

8
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-101

frequency devices, including one of the AV transmitters that was identified as noncompliant in the
Marketing Citation, and is now subject to sanction.61
21. Contrary to HobbyKing’s assertion, the Commission is not required to elaborate on every
type of radio frequency device that, without the appropriate authorization, could violate section 302 of the
Act or the Commission’s rules before enforcing the statute and the rules.62 As the D.C. Circuit has said,
“[t]he fair notice doctrine, which is couched in terms of due process, provides redress only if an agency’s
interpretation is ‘so far from a reasonable person’s understanding of the regulations that they could not
have fairly informed the regulated party of the agency’s perspective.’”63 Here, the many years of
Commission regulation of radio frequency devices generally, including intentional radiators like the AV
transmitters, and specific enforcement actions involving similar devices, fairly informed HobbyKing that
it must seek certification before marketing the AV transmitters in the United States.64
22. We further disagree with HobbyKing’s claim that bureau-level enforcement actions
cannot provide notice.65 Putting aside that the plain language of the Commission’s rules provided
adequate notice, courts have found fair notice in a variety of agency documents regardless of the level of
authority within the agency, as where an agency takes a consistent position regarding an issue in
documents like guidance memoranda, a “question-and-answer booklet,” and opinion letters.66 Here, the
61
47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(5) (“Whenever the requirements of this paragraph are satisfied with respect to a particular
person, such person shall not be entitled to receive any additional citation of the violation charged, with respect to
any conduct of the type described in the citation sent under this paragraph.”).
62
HobbyKing argues that section 302 of the Act requires a regulation to provide notice to a company about whether
a particular device is compliant or noncompliant, NAL Response at 10. As noted above, the Commission’s rules
expressly apply to all devices that constitute intentional radiators, except where expressly excepted. HobbyKing’s
argument is tantamount to a claim that agencies have no authority to issue rules of “general . . . applicability,” which
is flatly at odds with the Administrative Procedure Act. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 551(4), 553. In any event, however,
absolute specificity is not a prerequisite for enforcing a statute or regulation. See, e.g., Lachman, 387 F.3d at 56-57
(stating the “mere fact that a statute or regulation requires interpretation does not render it unconstitutionally vague,”
and that case law “do[es] not stand for the proposition that any ambiguity in a regulation bars punishment”).
63
Mississippi Comm’n on Envtl. Quality v. EPA, 790 F.3d 138, 186 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (quoting United States v.
Chrysler Corp., 158 F.3d 1350, 1354 (D.C. Cir. 1998)); see also United States v. Thomas, 864 F.2d 188, 195 (D.C.
Cir. 1988) (“statutes cannot, in reason, define proscribed behavior exhaustively or with consummate precision”).
64
NAL, 33 FCC Rcd at 5534-35, paras. 8-9 (collecting cases that state devices operating both on and off amateur
frequencies require authorization). HobbyKing claims that bureau-level cases cannot provide notice. To the
contrary, courts have found fair notice where an agency is publicly consistent regarding the disputed interpretation
in documents like guidance memorandum, a “question-and-answer booklet,” and opinion letters. See e.g., Nat’l
Oilseed Processors Ass’n v. Occupational Safety & Health Admin., 769 F.3d 1173, 1183 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (plain
language of regulation and guidance in the form of a Memorandum to Regional Administrators from Thomas
Galassi, Director, Directorate of Enforcement Programs, OSHA provided sufficient notice); Sekula v. FDIC, 39 F.3d
448, 455-57 (3d Cir. 1994) (fact that interpretation of ambiguous regulation was disseminated to public in “question-
and-answer booklet” was “particularly significant” in finding adequate notice); Sec’y of Labor v. Beverly
Healthcare–Hillview, 541 F.3d 193, 202 (3d Cir. 2008) (opinion letter issued by OSHA’s Director of Compliance
Programs was sufficient to satisfy fair notice); Gen. Elec., 53 F.3d at 1329 (stating that notice can come from
“regulations and other public statements issued by the agency”) (emphasis added). Here, the Commission has been
consistent that radio frequency devices that operate on both amateur and other frequencies require an authorization,
and HobbyKing was on notice. See NAL, 33 FCC Rcd at 5534-35, paras. 8-9 (collecting cases that state devices
operating both on and off amateur frequencies require authorization).
65
NAL Response at 12.
66
See e.g., Nat’l Oilseed Processors Ass’n v. Occupational Safety & Health Admin., 769 F.3d 1173, 1183 (D.C. Cir.
2014) (plain language of regulation and guidance in the form of a Memorandum to Regional Administrators from
Thomas Galassi, Director, Directorate of Enforcement Programs, OSHA provided sufficient notice); Sekula v.
FDIC, 39 F.3d 448, 455–57 (3d Cir. 1994) (fact that interpretation of ambiguous regulation was disseminated to
public in “question-and-answer booklet” was “particularly significant” in finding adequate notice); Sec’y of Labor v.

9
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-101

Bureau-level enforcement actions have been consistent with the Commission’s rules, all of which
provided fair notice to HobbyKing.
23. Finally, we note that the principal case cited by HobbyKing regarding fair notice, Fox
Television, is inapposite. In that case, the court concluded that the Commission had provided conflicting
or changing interpretations of the statute and regulation at issue.67 Not so here.
C. The Fifth Amendment Did Not Relieve HobbyKing of its Duty to Respond to the
LOI
24. We reject HobbyKing’s assertion that requiring it to respond fully to the Letter of Inquiry
violated its constitutional right against self-incrimination.68 The Commission’s authority to conduct
investigations and to compel entities to provide information and documents sought during investigations
is well-settled.69 The Commission has delegated to the Bureau authority to “conduct investigations . . . on
its own initiative” of potential violations of the Act or the Commission’s rules.70 HobbyKing refused to
provide a full response to the LOI. Although HobbyKing supplied information on the four AV
transmitters specifically identified in the LOI, it provided nothing regarding any of the other AV
transmitters listed on HobbyKing’s website, despite being directed to do so in the LOI.71

Beverly Healthcare–Hillview, 541 F.3d 193, 202 (3d Cir. 2008) (opinion letter issued by OSHA’s Director of
Compliance Programs was sufficient to satisfy fair notice); Gen. Elec., 53 F.3d at 1329 (stating that notice can come
from “regulations and other public statements issued by the agency”).
67
Fox Tel., 567 U.S. at 254 (FCC “changed course and held that fleeting expletives could be a statutory violation”);
see also Gen. Elec., 53 F.3d at 1332 (different divisions of the EPA disagreed about the meaning of the regulation at
issue); see also Lachman, 387 F.3d at 58 (“ascertainable certainty” line of cases applicable where “the agency had
given conflicting public interpretations of the regulation”); see also Suburban Air Freight, Inc. v. Transp. Sec.
Admin., 716 F.3d 679, 684 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (rejecting “fair notice” argument against penalty, where “Suburban
makes no argument that TSA previously interpreted those provisions differently, let alone that the company relied
on any such interpretation.”); Otis Elevator Co. v. Sec’y of Labor, 762 F.3d 116, 125 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (rejecting
“fair notice” argument where “Otis Elevator has not identified any pattern of contrary practice by the Secretary or
contrary interpretations by the Commission.”).
68
HobbyKing claims the assessment of a forfeiture for its failure to fully respond to the Letter of Inquiry
contravenes the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination. NAL Response at 13-14. HobbyKing
argues that the threat of imprisonment in the Letter of Inquiry and the Letter of Inquiry Citation means that the
monetary penalty assessed in the NAL for HobbyKing’s failure to fully respond to the Letter of Inquiry should be
canceled. Id. at 15, 18.
69
Section 4(i) authorizes the Commission to “issue such orders, not inconsistent with this Act as may be necessary
in the execution of its functions.” 47 U.S.C. § 154(i). Section 4(j) states that “[t]he Commission may conduct its
proceedings in such manner as will best conduce to the proper dispatch of business and to the ends of justice.” 47
U.S.C. § 154(j). Section 403 grants the Commission both the authority to institute inquiries and “the power to make
and enforce any order or orders” relating to its inquiries into compliance with the Act. 47 U.S.C. § 403. Section
0.111(a)(17) of the Commission’s rules delegates this authority to the Bureau. 47 CFR § 0.111(a)(17) (granting the
Enforcement Bureau the authority to “[i]dentify and analyze complaint information, conduct investigations, conduct
external audits and collect information, including pursuant to sections 218, 220, 308(b), 403 and 409(e) through (k)
of the Communications Act, in connection with complaints, on its own initiative or upon request of another Bureau
or Office.”).
70
47 CFR § 0.111(a)(17); see 47 U.S.C. § 155(c)(3) (“Any order . . . or action made or taken pursuant to any [ ]
delegation . . . shall have the same force and effect . . . and [be] enforced in the same manner, as orders . . . of the
Commission.”).
71
NAL, 33 FCC Rcd at 5532, para. 5 & n.13-14.

10
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-101

25. The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution provides that “[n]o person . . . shall be
compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.”72 It is well established that corporations
and other collective entities are not protected by the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-
incrimination.73 HobbyKing admits that “Fifth Amendment rights are held by individuals, not
corporations.”74
26. No HobbyKing principal has ever asserted a Fifth Amendment right against self-
incrimination in this investigation at any time. Even if they had, an individual in possession of the
records of a collective entity cannot assert a Fifth Amendment privilege against producing them, even if
production might tend to incriminate the individual personally.75
D. The Proposed Forfeiture Amount Is Appropriate
27. After considering the relevant statutory factors and the Commission’s Forfeiture Policy
Statement, we find that HobbyKing is liable for a total forfeiture of $2,861,128. As explained in the NAL,
this total results from applying a $7,000 base forfeiture for the 65 models of noncompliant equipment
marketed by HobbyKing. For 50 of these models, we upwardly adjusted that base forfeiture for the
marketing violations because HobbyKing apparently had long marketed noncompliant devices and
intentionally marketed devices that could not be certified because of their operating frequencies. For
fifteen of the models, we further upwardly adjusted the forfeiture to the statutory maximum because those
models presented an egregious threat to public safety.76 The base forfeiture for HobbyKing’s apparent
violations related to its failure to fully respond to the Letter of Inquiry and the LOI Citations is $4,000 for
each violation, and we upwardly adjusted the base forfeiture to the statutory maximum based on
HobbyKing’s egregious behavior in refusing to cooperate in the investigation after being given numerous
opportunities to cure its failure to respond.77
28. We reject HobbyKing’s arguments that the proposed forfeiture should be reduced due to
its alleged inability to pay, its alleged history of compliance with the Commission’s rules, or because the
proposed fine treats HobbyKing differently from similarly situated entities.78 None of these arguments
has merit. We therefore find no basis to reduce or cancel the forfeiture.

72
U.S. CONST. amend. V.
73
Braswell v. United States, 487 U.S. 99, 104-10 (1988); see also LPFM Mx Group 37, Memorandum Opinion and
Order, 31 FCC Rcd 7512, 7516, para. 11 & n.33 (2016) (“As a corporation, SFI generally cannot assert a Fifth
Amendment right against self-incrimination.”) (citing Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906)); see also United States v.
White, 322 U.S. 694, 699 (1944) (“Since the privilege against self-incrimination is a purely personal one, it cannot
be utilized by or on behalf of any organization, such as a corporation.”).
74
NAL Response at 15, n.26.
75
Braswell, 487 U.S. at 106-07 (discussing Wilson v. United States, 221 U.S. 361 (1911), and Dreier v. United
States, 221 U.S. 394 (1911).
76
NAL, 33 FCC Rcd at 5540-42, paras. 22-24. At the time of the NAL, the statutory maximum was $19,639 for each
violation or each day of a continuing violation and $147,290 for any single act or failure to act. See 47 U.S.C. §
503(b)(2)(D); 47 CFR § 1.80(b)(7), (b)(9); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission’s Rules, Adjustment of
Civil Monetary Penalties to Reflect Inflation, Order, 33 FCC Rcd 46 (EB 2018); see also Adjustment of Civil
Monetary Penalties to Reflect Inflation, 83 Fed. Reg. 4600 (Feb. 1, 2018). The resulting calculation is 50 models x
$12,250 ($7,000 base + $5,250 upward adjustment) = $612,500; and 15 models x $147,290 (statutory maximum) =
$2,209,350; for a total forfeiture for the equipment marketing violations of $2,821,850.
77
NAL, 33 FCC Rcd at 5542, para. 25. The resulting calculation for the two failure to respond violations at $19,639
each results in a total forfeiture of $39,278. Thus, the overall forfeiture is $2,861,128 ($2,821,850 for equipment
marketing violations + $39,278 for failure to respond violations).
78
NAL Response at 18-23.

11
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-101

1. Inability to Pay
29. HobbyKing has failed to meet the burden of showing an inability to pay the proposed
forfeiture.79 Even if it had, we would decline to reduce the forfeiture due to the egregious, intentional,
and repeated and continuous nature of the violations.
30. First, HobbyKing did not provide complete financial information to support its inability
to pay claim. The NAL stated that the Commission would not consider reducing the forfeiture in response
to a claim of inability to pay unless HobbyKing submitted supporting financial information, including
“(1) federal tax returns for the most recent three-year period; (2) financial statements prepared according
to generally accepted accounting practices; or (3) some other reliable and objective documentation that
accurately reflects the petitioner’s current financial status.”80 The NAL found two related companies
doing business as HobbyKing, ABC Fulfillment Services LLC and Indubitably, Inc., apparently liable for
the violations, yet HobbyKing provided three years of tax returns for only one, Indubitably, Inc.81
HobbyKing did not provide tax returns, financial statements, or, indeed, any financial information, for
ABC Fulfillment Services LLC, and we therefore have no basis to reduce its forfeiture amount. We find
that HobbyKing’s claim that ABC Fulfillment Services LLC was involved in fulfillment services only
until the end of 2015 too vague to rule the company out as a source of payment.82 Even if true, that would
not absolve that company from failing to provide financial information for at least 2015, the first year of
the relevant three-year period.83 In addition, HobbyKing’s financial information is incomplete because it
did not provide any financial information involving its related Hong Kong company, Hextronik LTD,
without which we are unable to judge HobbyKing’s ability to pay.84 In sum, although HobbyKing
provided tax returns for one affiliated company in support of its inability to pay request, it failed to

79
Id. at 18.
80
See NAL, 33 FCC Rcd at 5544, para. 34.
81
NAL Response at 18. HobbyKing also relied upon Indubitably, Inc.’s taxable income to support its inability to
pay request instead of gross revenue, which the Commission has determined, as a general matter, is the appropriate
metric for analyzing inability to pay. See Net One Int’l, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 31 FCC Rcd 2367, 2380, para. 38
(2016) (“With regard to an individual’s or entity’s inability to pay claim, the Commission has determined that, in
general, gross income or revenues are the best indicator of an ability to pay a forfeiture.”) (footnote omitted).
82
Letter and attachments from Rebecca Larson, Esq., Davies Pearson, P.C., Attorney for HobbyKing, to Jason
Koslofsky, Attorney Advisor, Spectrum Enforcement Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau at 1 (May 24, 2017) (LOI
Response) (on file in EB-SED-17-000223762).
83
See NAL, 33 FCC Rcd at 5544, para. 34. Upon the release of the NAL in 2018, three years of tax returns would
have covered 2015, 2016, and 2017. Thus, HobbyKing should have provided ABC Fulfillment Services LLC’s
2015 tax return to provide a complete picture of HobbyKing’s financial status. Further, it appears that ABC
Fulfillment Services LLC was active until 2017. According to filings in the Washington corporate records database,
ABC Fulfillment Services LLC was only administratively dissolved in 2018 after failing to file an annual report in
2018, but the company filed an annual report, signed by Anthony J. Hand, as recently as 2017. See Washington
Corporations and Charities Filing System, https://ccfs.sos.wa.gov/#/ (last visited July 9, 2019) (searching Business
Name: ABC FULFILLMENT SERVICES LLC or UBI Number: 603 026 042). Anthony J. Hand is associated
with Indubitably, Inc., ABC Fulfillment Services LLC, and Hextronik LTD. LOI Response at 1. Thus, tax returns
for ABC Fulfillment Services LLC through 2017 would have been necessary to fully support an inability to pay
claim. To the extent HobbyKing has other affiliated companies, subsidiaries, or parents not addressed in the NAL,
complete financial information related to those companies should have been included as well.
84
LOI Response at 1 (Hextronik LTD is part HobbyKing’s marketing setup); A-O Broad. Corp., Forfeiture Order,
2003 WL 23018131, 31 Communications Reg. (P&F) 411, para. 24 (2003) (rejecting inability to pay claim where
company did not provide information on lines of credit, liquid assets, or the assets and income of the company’s
owner).

12
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-101

provide the complete financial information required by the NAL that would allow us to find an inability to
pay.85
31. Second, even had HobbyKing provided sufficient documentation to support a claim of
inability to pay, we would decline to reduce the forfeiture because of the nature of HobbyKing’s
violations. A claimed inability to pay a forfeiture amount is one of several factors the Commission must
consider when determining an appropriate forfeiture under section 503 of the Act and our forfeiture
guidelines. We must also consider “the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and,
with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, . . . and such other
matters as justice may require.”86 As noted in the NAL and undisputed in HobbyKing’s NAL Response,
HobbyKing has a long history of marketing noncompliant radio frequency devices, some of which
threaten public safety, even after receiving warnings from the Commission to stop its illegal behavior.87
Given these actions by HobbyKing, a reduction for inability to pay would be inappropriate when
compared to the other circumstances of the case.88 Accordingly, we decline to downwardly adjust the
monetary forfeiture, notwithstanding HobbyKing’s claimed inability to pay. Rather, we find that factor to
be greatly outweighed by the other balancing factors that militate in favor of a large forfeiture.
2. Other Downward Adjustment Factors
32. We reject HobbyKing’s argument that the forfeiture should be reduced due to an alleged
history of compliance with the Commission’s rules and several other downward adjustment factors.89 The

85
See NAL, 33 FCC Rcd at 5544, para. 34 (stating that documentation of inability to pay must be supported by
“reliable and objective documentation that accurately reflects the petitioner’s current financial status”). As noted by
the Commission:
Although the Commission has looked at the prior three years of tax returns as one way to benchmark an
ability to pay, we also recognize that income may represent only a small fraction of a wrongdoer’s wealth.
Thus, the tax returns in themselves may not fully address whether the wrongdoer is able to pay the
proposed forfeiture. We note, too, that when the Department of Justice pursues collections on the
Commission’s behalf, it looks at a wide range of resources, beyond tax returns, in evaluating a person or
entity’s ability to pay a claim or judgment. If we limit our analysis to tax returns, the Commission would
be ignoring relevant assets that the Department of Justice would consider in its ability to pay determination,
potentially reducing the pool of assets that could factor into the determination.
Adrian Abramovich, Marketing Strategy Leaders, Inc., and Marketing Leaders, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 33 FCC Rcd
4663, 4678-79, para. 44 (2018) (Abramovich Forfeiture Order) (footnotes omitted).
86
47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(E).
87
See NAL, 33 FCC Rcd at 5541, para. 23; Fabrice Polynice, N. Miami, Fl, Forfeiture Order, 33 FCC Rcd 6852,
para. 23 (2018) (declining an inability to pay request where the target’s “illegal actions were egregious and
deliberate” and could “interfere with licensed communications, including authorized broadcasts and public safety
transmissions”); Abramovich Forfeiture Order, 33 FCC Rcd at 4679, para. 45 (ability to pay is one of several factors
to be considered in determining the appropriate forfeiture and can be outweighed by other factors to result in a large
forfeiture).
88
See, e.g., Purple Communications, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 30 FCC Rcd 14892, 14903-904, paras. 32-33 (2015)
(acknowledging that “standing alone, Purple’s financial documents might support a reduction” but finding after
applying the balancing factors no reduction was warranted); TV Max, Inc., et al., Forfeiture Order, 29 FCC Rcd
8648, 8661, para. 25 (2014) (noting that the Commission “has previously rejected inability to pay claims in cases of
repeated or otherwise egregious violations”); Kevin W. Bondy, Forfeiture Order, 26 FCC Rcd 7840, 7844–45,
para. 16 (EB 2011) (violator’s repeated intentional and malicious violations outweighed evidence of inability to
pay), recon. dismissed, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 1170 (EB 2013); Whisler Fleurinor,
Forfeiture Order, 28 FCC Rcd 1087, 1090, para. 9 (EB 2013) (violator’s demonstrated inability to pay outweighed
by gravity of repeated violations).
89
NAL Response at 19-20. In addition to the arguments addressed in this section, HobbyKing argues the “overall
mix of factors” warrants a reduction in the forfeiture, citing back to earlier arguments about lack of notice and its

13
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-101

record—including the Marketing Citation in which the Bureau found earlier equipment marketing
violations—shows HobbyKing has a long history of prior noncompliance.90
33. We also reject HobbyKing’s argument that the forfeiture should be reduced because any
harm from noncompliant marketing is de minimis because the Company claims its sales were low.91 The
Commission is not required to calculate a forfeiture based on the revenue earned (or lack thereof) by the
violations in question.92 The Commission generally will not reduce a forfeiture based on the lack of sales
in an equipment marketing case.93
34. HobbyKing’s claim that the equipment at issue has not caused actual interference (or
complaints thereof) similarly does not warrant a downward adjustment.94 The Commission long ago
rejected any notion of “no harm, no foul,” where a violation did not lead to a documented case of
interference.95 The potential for harmful interference to critical Federal Aviation Administration systems
and other federal operations by the products at issue here is, in fact, sufficiently egregious to cause us to
upwardly adjust the forfeiture.96
35. We reject HobbyKing’s argument that, because the AV transmitters might have been
used by amateur license holders that were responsible for their own FCC rule compliance, HobbyKing’s
marketing violations were somehow less serious.97 While amateur license holders must comply with the
rules for operating in the Amateur Radio Service, HobbyKing, not the amateur operators that may have
purchased the equipment, is responsible for complying with the equipment marketing rules.98 Further, as

purported Fifth Amendment rights. NAL Response at 19. We rejected those arguments above in Sections III.B. and
III.C. and, thus, reject them as the basis of a downward adjustment here.
90
The history of noncompliant marketing going back to 2016 documented in the Marketing Citation precludes a
downward adjustment for a history of compliance. See Indigo Wireless, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 29 FCC Rcd 7404,
7408, para. 8 (EB 2014) (“In light of the fact that Indigo Wireless failed to offer to consumers the requisite number
of digital wireless hearing aid-compatible handset models for nine months of the reporting period, we do not believe
that Indigo Wireless can be said to have a history of overall compliance with the Commission’s rules and, therefore,
no reduction of the forfeiture based on this factor is warranted.”); Lawmate Tech. Co., Ltd., Forfeiture Order, 27
FCC Rcd 15159, 15162, para. 8 (EB 2012) (“When evaluating a petitioner’s compliance history, we take into
account both concurrent and prior violations, including violations occurring outside the statute of limitations as well
as the duration of each such violation.”).
91
NAL Response at 19.
92
See Liab. of Altavista Broad. Corp., Licensee of Station Wkde, Altavista, Va., for Forfeiture, Memorandum
Opinion and Order, 2 FCC 2d 445, 446, para. 8 (1966) (“that the licensee allegedly did not benefit from the
violations is irrelevant to this proceeding”).
93
See e.g., Vitec Grp. Commc'ns Ltd. Cambridge, United Kingdom, Order on Review, 24 FCC Rcd 14823, 14826,
para. 9 (2009) (“We also concur with the Bureau’s finding that the lack of availability of the CellCom 10 at the time
of the pre-certification advertising is not material.”).
94
NAL Response at 19.
95
Pacific Western Broadcasters, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 50 FCC 2d 819, para. 4 (1975) (rejecting a
broadcaster’s claim that the forfeiture should be downwardly adjusted because its operations at excessive power
levels did not cause public harm or complaint, stating that “[t]he Commission not only is concerned with actual
interference, but is concerned with the potential for interference”); see also Bureau Delectronique Appliquee, Inc.,
Forfeiture Order, 20 FCC Rcd 17893, 17898, para. 16 (EB 2005) (“It is well established that the absence of public
harm (i.e., the lack of interference caused by operation of Wizard and Falcon units) is not considered a mitigating
factor and thus does not warrant a downward adjustment of an assessed forfeiture.”).
96
NAL, 33 FCC Rcd at 5541-42, para. 23.
97
NAL Response at 19-20.
98
See supra Section III.A.

14
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-101

stated in the NAL, the Company’s marketing was not limited to amateur license holders; anyone could
purchase the AV transmitters at issue.99 Overall, the fact that a buyer might use a noncompliant device in
a compliant manner does not nullify HobbyKing’s marketing violations or lessen their impact.
Nonetheless, we again warn consumers who own unauthorized HobbyKing devices that they should cease
using them immediately or risk enforcement action for operating equipment in violation of the
Commission’s rules.100
36. HobbyKing also argues that it should receive a reduced penalty because it complies with
FAA regulations on drones.101 FAA regulations are not germane here and bear no weight in whether
HobbyKing violated FCC regulations. Similarly, compliance with FAA regulations is irrelevant in
deciding whether the proposed forfeiture penalty should be reduced.
37. Finally, we find that HobbyKing is the marketer of the devices and is liable as such.
Accordingly, we reject HobbyKing’s argument that only the parties responsible for obtaining the
equipment authorizations would be responsible for complying with the equipment marketing rules.102 The
Act and Commission’s rules prohibit anyone from marketing noncompliant devices, including companies
like HobbyKing who may or may not be responsible for the authorization of the device.103 Even if
HobbyKing had any doubt about this, the Marketing Citation provided HobbyKing notice of the rules and
warned the Company to market only compliant devices.104
3. Comparison to Other Forfeitures
38. The forfeiture amount in this case is consistent with other prior actions.105 The Bureau
has, in fact, pursued and settled several recent investigations related to drone accessories.106 Prior to that,
the Bureau had engaged in several investigations involving similar equipment going back 10 years.107
39. The Commission has treated HobbyKing similarly to other targets of enforcement for
equipment marketing violations when it calculated the proposed forfeiture in the NAL. The Commission
calculated the proposed forfeiture by first assessing a $7,000 base forfeiture for each model (65 models

99
NAL, 33 FCC Rcd at 5536-37, paras. 12-13.
100
Id. at 5537, para. 13 n.50; see also AV Transmitter Enforcement Advisory.
101
NAL Response at 20.
102
NAL, 33 FCC Rcd at 5533, para. 7, n.26. HobbyKing claims it is not the responsible party and that we should
therefore lower the forfeiture amount. NAL Response at 20.
103
47 U.S.C. § 302a(b); 47 CFR § 2.803. As detailed in the NAL, HobbyKing received a Citation warning that
continued marketing could subject the Company to penalties and it continued to market noncompliant AV
transmitters anyway. NAL, 33 FCC Rcd at 5531-32, paras. 4-5.
104
NAL, 33 FCC Rcd at 5531-32, paras. 4-5. HobbyKing may also be the manufacturer of some of the devices in
question and thus, also responsible for the device certification. See NAL, 33 FCC Rcd at 5533, para. 7, n.26.
105
HobbyKing argues other cases show its forfeiture should be reduced. NAL Response at 20-21.
106
Lumenier Holdco LLC, formerly known as FPV Manuals LLC, Order and Consent Decree, 32 FCC Rcd 10291
(EB 2017) (settling investigation into noncompliant drone AV transmitters); Horizon Hobby, LLC, Order and
Consent Decree, 33 FCC Rcd 7982 (EB 2018) (same).
107
See Iftron, 24 FCC Rcd at 8804, para. 5 (notice of apparent liability for marketing an audio/video transmitter that
operates on a restricted frequency and therefore is not eligible for a grant of equipment certification); New
Generation Hobbies, 26 FCC Rcd at 9471, n.23 (citation for marketing unauthorized video transmitters that operate
on restricted frequencies).

15
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-101

total),108 which it has long done in many equipment marketing cases.109 Next, the Commission evaluated
whether any upward or downward adjustment factors were applicable, as it is obligated to do by the Act
and the Commission’s rules,110 and found that certain upward adjustment factors were present.111 In its
NAL Response, HobbyKing offered no legitimate reason why those upward adjustment factors should not
be assessed, nor why any downward adjustment factors should have been considered.112 Although the
forfeiture amount is significant, the Commission has previously assessed large fines for equipment
marketing violations based on the specific facts of the investigation where upward adjustments were
appropriate.113
IV. CONCLUSION
40. Based on the record before us and in light of the applicable statutory factors, we conclude
that HobbyKing willfully and repeatedly violated section 302 of the Act;114 section 2.803 of the
Commission’s rules;115 and Commission orders116 by marketing noncompliant radio frequency devices
and refusing to fully respond to the LOI. We adopt the $2,861,128 forfeiture proposed in the NAL.
V. ORDERING CLAUSES
41. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act,117 and
section 1.80 of the Commission’s rules,118 ABC Fulfillment Services LLC and Indubitably, Inc. d/b/a
HobbyKing IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two million eight
hundred sixty-one thousand one hundred and twenty-eight dollars ($2,861,128) for willfully and

108
NAL, 33 FCC Rcd at 5540, para. 21.
109
47 CFR § 1.80(b). See e.g., Behringer USA, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 21 FCC
Rcd 1820 (2006), forfeiture ordered, 22 FCC Rcd 10451 (2007) (forfeiture paid) (Behringer).
110
47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(E); 47 CFR § 1.80(b)(8), Note to paragraph (b)(8); see also Forfeiture Policy Statement.
111
NAL, 33 FCC Rcd at 5540-41, para. 22. Although the forfeiture amount is significant, an assessment for each
model at the statutory maximum at the time would have resulted in a forfeiture amount of $9,573,850 (65 models x
$147,290).
112
See supra Sections III.D.1. and III.D.2.
113
See e.g., Bear Down Brands, LLC DBA Pure Enrichment, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 33 FCC
Rcd 5449, 5457-59, paras. 23-26 (May 30, 2018) (proposing a total forfeiture of $590,380 for 14 models of
noncompliant radio frequency device models) (forfeiture paid); Behringer, 22 FCC Rcd at 10458, para. 17
(affirming $1,000,000 forfeiture for 50 noncompliant radio frequency device models). Additionally, HobbyKing
mischaracterizes the nature of several cases in arguing that the Commission is assessing higher upward adjustments
in this case than in prior cases involving actual interference to public safety. NAL Response at 22, n.46. To start,
the Ravi Import Warehouse case did not involve interference to public safety, yet still had a 30% upward adjustment
based on the target’s behavior in the investigation. See e.g., Ravi’s Import Warehouse Inc., Notice of Apparent
Liability for Forfeiture, 32 FCC Rcd 5606 (EB 2017) (interference to AT&T’s base station). The unique facts of the
other cases cited by HobbyKing involving interference to public safety do not warrant a reduction here, and
HobbyKing makes no attempt to compare the circumstances in those cases involving operation violations to its own
equipment marketing violations.
114
47 U.S.C. § 302a(b).
115
47 CFR § 2.803.
116
See supra note 15.
117
47 U.S.C. § 503(b).
118
47 CFR § 1.80.

16
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-101

repeatedly violating section 302 of the Act,119 section 2.803 of the Commission’s rules,120 and
Commission orders.
42. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the
Commission’s rules within thirty (30) calendar days after the release of this Forfeiture Order.121 ABC
Fulfillment Services LLC and Indubitably, Inc. d/b/a HobbyKing shall send electronic notification of
payment to Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications
Commission, at [email protected] on the date said payment is made. If the forfeiture is not
paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the U.S. Department of Justice for
enforcement of the forfeiture pursuant to section 504(a) of the Act.122
43. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by credit card, ACH (Automated Clearing
House) debit from a bank account using the Commission’s Fee Filer (the Commission’s online payment
system),123 or by wire transfer. The Commission no longer accepts forfeiture payments by check or
money order. Below are instructions that payors should follow based on the form of payment selected:124
 Payment by wire transfer must be made to ABA Number 021030004, receiving bank
TREAS/NYC, and Account Number 27000001. A completed Form 159 must be faxed to
the Federal Communications Commission at 202-418-2843 or e-mailed to
[email protected] on the same business day the wire transfer is initiated. Failure
to provide all required information in Form 159 may result in payment not being
recognized as having been received. When completing FCC Form 159, enter the Account
Number in block number 23A (call sign/other ID), enter the letters “FORF” in block
number 24A (payment type code), and enter in block number 11 the FRN(s) captioned
above (Payor FRN). For additional detail and wire transfer instructions, go to
https://www.fcc.gov/licensing-databases/fees/wire-transfer.
 Payment by credit card must be made by using the Commission’s Fee Filer website at
https://apps.fcc.gov/FeeFiler/login.cfm. To pay by credit card, log-in using the FRN
captioned above. If payment must be split across FRNs, complete this process for each
FRN. Next, select “Pay bills” on the Fee Filer Menu, and select the bill number associated
with the NAL Account – the bill number is the NAL Account number with the first two
digits excluded – and then choose the “Pay by Credit Card” option. Please note that there
is a $24,999.99 limit on credit card transactions.
 Payment by ACH must be made by using the Commission’s Fee Filer website at
https://apps.fcc.gov/FeeFiler/login.cfm. To pay by ACH, log in using the FRN captioned
above. If payment must be split across FRNs, complete this process for each FRN. Next,
select “Pay bills” on the Fee Filer Menu and then select the bill number associated to the
NAL Account – the bill number is the NAL Account number with the first two digits
excluded – and choose the “Pay from Bank Account” option. Please contact the
appropriate financial institution to confirm the correct Routing Number and the correct

119
47 U.S.C. § 302a(b).
120
47 CFR § 2.803.
121
Id. § 1.80.
122
47 U.S.C. § 504(a).
123
Payments made using the Commission’s Fee Filer system do not require the submission of an FCC Form 159.
124
For questions regarding payment procedures, please contact the Financial Operations Group Help Desk by phone
at 1-877-480-3201 (option #6), or by e-mail at [email protected].

17
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-101

account number from which payment will be made and verify with that financial institution
that the designated account has authorization to accept ACH transactions.
44. Any request for making full payment over time under an installment plan should be sent
to: Chief Financial Officer – Financial Operations, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th
Street, SW, Room 1-A625, Washington, DC 20554.125 Questions regarding payment procedures should
be directed to the Financial Operations Group Help Desk by telephone, 1-877-480-3201, or by e-mail,
[email protected].
45. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Forfeiture Order shall be sent by first
class mail and certified mail, return receipt requested, to Mr. Anthony Hand, Owner and Director, ABC
Fulfillment Services LLC, via registered agent Davies Pearson, P.C., 920 Fawcett Ave, Tacoma, WA
98401-1657; and to Mr. Anthony Hand, Owner and Director, Indubitably, Inc. via Corporation Service
Company, Registered Agent, 2711 Centerville Rd., Suite 400, Wilmington, DE 19808-1645; and to
Dennis P. Corbett, Esq., Telecommunications Law Professionals PLLC, Counsel to HobbyKing, 1025
Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1011, Washington, DC 20036.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary

125
See 47 CFR § 1.1914.
18
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-101

STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL O’RIELLY

Re: ABC Fulfillment Services LLC d/b/a HobbyKing USA LLC and HobbyKing.com; and Indubitably,
Inc. d/b/a HobbyKing Corp., HobbyKing USA LLC, HobbyKing, and HobbyKing.com, File No.: EB-
SED-17-00023762, NAL/Acct. No.: 201832100015, FRN: 0027528975

The Commission’s equipment authorization rules and processes provide a necessary safeguard to
help ensure that the Commission’s rules are followed and that harmful interference does not occur because of
faulty equipment. In this instance, HobbyKing marketed and sold drone equipment to consumers that did not
go through the required process and receive the necessary approvals, in violation of FCC rules. I am,
therefore, fully supportive of today’s forfeiture order.

Further, HobbyKing’s actions are in no way analogous to the equipment authorization rule changes I
have proposed. In today’s world where people are used to Kickstarter campaigns and ordering handsets
weeks before they are delivered into consumers’ eager hands, I have suggested commonsense updates to
permit the pre-sale of devices and the importation of products for advertising and retail display purposes
prior to their receiving FCC sign off. In both instances, the equipment would not get into the hands of
consumers without the manufacturer receiving the requisite FCC approvals. While these rule changes can be
effectively implemented without causing any harm to consumers or risk to our nation’s communications
networks, the same cannot be said of HobbyKing’s actions.

19