> If the alternative is getting your product banned, I suspect legal would figure something out. I appreciate the response, but it seems the opposite is happening. They have the feature already and are actively rolling it back. So they must believe the feature’s existence is a bigger threat to the company than not having it at all, right?

Define "bigger threat".

It could be the feature was so half-baked that it kicked in and dropped a bunch of drones out of the sky and DJI had to cough up refunds. It could be that DJI knows something about upcoming legal issues with the current administration. It could be that Chinese intelligence wants flyovers of restricted airspaces.

DJI isn't "just" a company--it's an arm of the Chinese government. Trying to predict what's happening at the interface between those two is like trying to read tea leaves--only reading tea leaves is likely to be more accurate and consistent.

> So they must believe the feature’s existence is a bigger threat to the company than not having it at all, right?

No, they’re probably simply doing the CCP’s bidding by allowing agents of the CCP, who already are in these countries, to use their drones to collect intelligence, disrupt operations, etc.