A $400 million fine. Raids on retailer locations. Allegations of supply threats against independent dealers. While DJI battles U.S. security reviews, Italy just opened an investigation into the company’s alleged price-fixing scheme—and the evidence was seized from distributor offices last week.

Italy’s competition authority has opened an investigation into Chinese drone maker DJI and its Italian distributor over allegations of price fixing, adding European antitrust enforcement to the mounting regulatory pressures facing the world’s dominant drone manufacturer. The Italian Competition Authority (AGCM) announced Wednesday it had launched a probe into DJI Europe BV and Nital SpA for allegedly pressuring retailers to maintain fixed prices on DJI Enterprise drones throughout Italy.

The investigation threatens DJI with potential fines reaching 10% of global revenue if violations are confirmed—a financial penalty that could exceed $400 million based on the company’s estimated annual turnover. For a manufacturer already fighting existential battles against U.S. security reviews and potential market bans, the Italian antitrust case opens an entirely new regulatory front in one of Europe’s largest drone markets.

Alleged Price-Fixing Scheme Targeted Independent Retailers

According to the AGCM, DJI and Nital allegedly established a resale price maintenance (RPM) system that monitored retailer pricing against Nital’s website hobbyhobby.it, which functioned as an unofficial “price list” for the Italian market. Retailers who deviated from these prices received warnings that included threats of supply interruptions and restrictions on using DJI trademarks.

“In this way, DJI and Nital allegedly enforce adherence to resale prices across their distribution network, preventing any form of price competition such as discounts or reductions for customers,” the AGCM stated in its announcement.

The authority also alleges the companies blocked parallel imports, preventing Italian retailers from purchasing DJI Enterprise drones from foreign distributors at lower prices and passing those savings to customers. This practice, if proven, would constitute a hardcore restriction under Article 4(a) of European Commission Regulation 720/2022, which governs vertical agreements between manufacturers and distributors.

Raids Conducted At Nital Headquarters And Retailer Locations

On October 23, AGCM officials conducted unannounced inspections at Nital’s headquarters in Moncalieri, near Turin, along with raids at several DJI Enterprise drone retailers across Italy. The inspections, carried out with assistance from the Guardia di Finanza’s Special Antitrust Unit, sought evidence of price monitoring systems and communications threatening retailers over pricing deviations.

Nital has served as DJI’s exclusive Italian importer since at least 2021, distributing the company’s products through physical retail channels and its hobbyhobby.it e-commerce platform. The Turin-based technology distributor, which also imports brands including Nikon, iRobot, and Polaroid, reported revenues of €133.8 million in 2023, generated almost entirely within Italy.

The investigation focuses specifically on DJI Enterprise drones—professional-grade aircraft used for public safety, firefighting, search and rescue, industrial inspections, precision agriculture, and professional surveying. The AGCM noted that the alleged price-fixing scheme also extended to complementary products and services sold separately, including extended warranties, launch platforms, and accessories.

EU Competition Law Carries Severe Financial Penalties

Resale price maintenance constitutes a serious violation of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which prohibits agreements between companies that restrict competition within the EU’s internal market. RPM is classified as a “by object” restriction—meaning it’s presumed anticompetitive without requiring detailed effects analysis.

European authorities have demonstrated willingness to impose substantial fines for RPM violations. Just two weeks ago, the European Commission fined luxury fashion houses Gucci, Chloé, and Loewe a combined €157 million ($171 million) for restricting retailers’ ability to set their own prices. In 2018, the Commission fined consumer electronics manufacturers Asus, Denon & Marantz, Philips, and Pioneer over €111 million for similar online resale price maintenance practices.

If the AGCM finds DJI and Nital violated Article 101 TFEU, fines could reach up to 10% of the companies’ total worldwide annual turnover. For DJI, whose annual revenue is estimated between $4-5 billion, maximum penalties could theoretically exceed $400 million—though actual fines typically fall below statutory maximums depending on the severity and duration of violations.

Neither DJI nor Nital has commented publicly on the investigation. Nital could not be reached for comment through its Turin headquarters.

DroneXL’s Take

This Italian antitrust investigation couldn’t come at a worse time for DJI, which is already fighting regulatory battles on multiple fronts. While the company scrambles to address U.S. national security concerns—facing a potential automatic ban if federal agencies fail to complete a mandated security review by December 23, 2025—it now confronts old-fashioned competition law enforcement in Europe.

The irony is striking. As DJI establishes shell companies like Skyany and Skyrover to circumvent anticipated U.S. restrictions through complex corporate maneuvering, European authorities are investigating whether its existing, above-board distribution practices violate fundamental competition principles. The company that dominates 76% of the U.S. consumer drone market allegedly couldn’t resist squeezing even more profit from its market position by dictating retail prices.

What makes this particularly concerning for drone operators is the broader pattern it reveals. DJI’s comprehensive legal defeat in its Pentagon lawsuit in September demonstrated the company’s struggle to defend itself against security allegations—even when courts acknowledge the government’s evidence isn’t “bulletproof.” Now, facing straightforward antitrust allegations backed by documented retailer complaints and physical evidence seized in raids, DJI may have an even harder time mounting a defense.

The timing matters for another reason: if European authorities start questioning DJI’s business practices, other EU member states might follow Italy’s lead. The AGCM investigation could trigger a cascade of similar probes across the European Union, where DJI maintains significant market share through various national distributors. Unlike the politically charged U.S. security reviews, antitrust cases rest on documented business practices and retailer testimony—evidence that’s much harder to dispute.

For American drone operators watching DJI’s global regulatory challenges unfold, this Italian investigation reinforces a sobering reality: the world’s dominant drone manufacturer faces pressure from multiple directions simultaneously. It’s not just about alleged security risks or geopolitical tensions anymore. It’s about whether DJI can operate within the established rules of the markets it dominates—or whether its aggressive business practices will invite regulatory scrutiny everywhere it operates.

What do you think? Should European authorities crack down on price-fixing regardless of geopolitical context, or does this investigation feel opportunistically timed? Share your thoughts in the comments below.