Federal Communications Commission	DA 26-694


Before the
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of

Cogito Tech Company Limited
)
)
)
)
)
)
)


File No.: EB-SED-26-00040760 
NAL/Acct No.:  202632100004
FRN: 0034126920

NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE AND ORDER

Adopted:  July 10, 2026	Released: July 10, 2026

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL), the Federal Communications Commission (Commission or FCC) proposes a penalty of $25,000 against Cogito Tech Company Limited (Cogito or Company) for apparently willfully failing to respond to the Enforcement Bureau’s (Bureau) Letter of Inquiry (LOI) as directed.  Specifically, Cogito failed to respond to an LOI requesting information about whether the Company has indirectly or directly marketed within the United States any radiofrequency (RF) equipment that was added to the Covered List on December 22, 2025, as posing an “unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or the safety and security of United States persons.” 47 U.S.C. § 1601(b).
  Accordingly, Cogito apparently violated a Commission order by failing to respond to the Bureau’s LOI as directed and to a subsequent letter directing Cogito to reply to the LOI.  Cogito thus is subject to a proposed forfeiture under section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act). See 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B).

2. The FCC is committed to protecting consumers in the United States and mitigating national security risks that may arise from certain entities that market RF equipment.  Regulation of RF devices is a key Commission responsibility.  Applicants for equipment authorizations are required to conduct due diligence in providing information to the Commission and its designees.  To facilitate this process, the Commission requires that all parties abide by the Commission’s equipment authorization rules and provide full and correct information about the party’s mailing address and the physical U.S. address and email address for its designated agent.  Additionally, the Commission has a duty to investigate allegations involving potential statutory and regulatory violations and will not tolerate a failure to respond to investigative inquiries, particularly when an investigation may involve risks to national security.  Instead, investigated parties must reply promptly and fully to Commission inquiries and provide all responsive information in their possession and control so the Commission can ascertain whether consumers are being protected and the nation’s networks remain secure in accordance with statutory requirements and associated Commission rules.
II. BACKGROUND
A. Legal Framework
3. Commission’s equipment authorization authority.  The Act authorizes the Commission to adopt rules, consistent with the “public interest,” governing the interference potential of devices capable of emitting RF energy. 47 U.S.C. § 302a(a).
  The statute prohibits the manufacture, importation, sale, offer for sale, shipment, or use of RF devices in the United States unless they comply with the Commission’s equipment authorization rules. 47 U.S.C. § 302a(b).
  
4. Failure to respond to an LOI.  The Commission’s authority to conduct investigations and to compel entities to provide information and documents sought during investigations is well-established. 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 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 0.111(a)(17) of the Commission’s rules delegates this authority to the Bureau.  47 CFR § 0.111(a)(17) (granting the 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”).  Furthermore, section 416(c) of the Act provides, “[i]t shall be the duty of every person . . . to observe and comply with such orders so long as the same shall remain in effect.”  47 U.S.C. § 416(c).
  Section 403 gives the Commission full authority to commence an investigation on its own motion and the “power to make and enforce any order or orders in the case” relating to the inquiry. 47 U.S.C. § 403.
  An LOI issued by the Bureau constitutes a Commission order directing the recipient to provide the specified information and documents, in the manner directed, within the stated response period. See, e.g., Eken Group Limited, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 39 FCC Rcd 12990, 12994, para. 10 (2024), citing Neon Phone Service, Inc., 32 FCC Rcd 7964, 7970, para. 16 (2017) (Eken NAL) (“It is well established that a failure to respond to a Bureau LOI [letter of inquiry] constitutes a violation of a Commission Order.”); Technical Communication Network, LLC, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 1018, 1019, para. 5 (2013) (“The LOI the Bureau directed to TCN served as a legal order of the Commission to produce the requested documents and information.”).
  The Commission has repeatedly taken enforcement action against entities that disregard orders to provide information related to potential violations. Eken NAL, 39 FCC Rcd at 12990; ABC Fulfillment Servs. LLC d/b/a Hobbyking USA LLC & Hobbyking.com, Forfeiture Order, 35 FCC Rcd 7441 (2020), aff’d, Memorandum and Order, 36 FCC Rcd 10688 (2021); Aura Holdings of Wisconsin, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 33 FCC Rcd 3688, 3696, para. 21 (2018), forfeiture order issued, 34 FCC Rcd 2540 (2019); Kenai Educational Media, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 32 FCC Rcd. 6211, 6218 (2017) (Kenai NAL), consent decree ordered, 24 FCC Rcd 4865 (2019); SBC Commc’ns, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 7589, 7599-7600, paras. 23-28 (2002) (SBC Forfeiture Order); Cellco Partnership D/B/A Verizon Wireless, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 37 FCC Rcd 7799, para. 13 (EB 2022); Net One Int'l, Net One, LLC, Farrahtel Int’l, LLC, Forfeiture Order, 29 FCC Rcd 264, 267, para. 9 (EB 2014), recons. denied, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 30 FCC Rcd 1021 (EB 2015).

5. National security considerations.  Pursuant to section 2 of the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act of 2019 (Secure Networks Act), the Commission must publish and update a “Covered List” of communications equipment and services. Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act of 2019, Pub. L. No. 116-124, § 2, 133 Stat. 158, 158-59 (2020) (codified as amended at 47 U.S.C. § 1601); see 47 CFR §§ 1.50002, 1.50003.
  The FCC’s Covered List is comprised of equipment and services that have been specifically determined, by one of four enumerated sources, 47 CFR § 1.50001(b).
 to pose an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or the security and safety of United States persons. Id.
  On December 22, 2025, after receiving a “National Security Determination” See 47 U.S.C. § 1601(c).
 from an interagency body with appropriate national security expertise, the Commission’s Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB) updated the Covered List to include “Uncrewed aircraft systems (UAS) and UAS critical components produced in a foreign country and all communications and video surveillance equipment and services listed in Section 1709(a)(1) of the FY25 National Defense Authorization Act (Pub. L. 118-159) (FY25 NDAA).” Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau Announces Addition of Uncrewed Aircraft Systems (UAS) and UAS Critical Components Produced Abroad, and Equipment and Services Listed in Section 1709 of the FY2025 NDAA, to FCC Covered List, WC Docket No. 18-89, ET Docket No. 21-232, EA Docket No. 21-233, Public Notice, 40 FCC Rcd 10215, 10218 (PSHSB Dec. 22, 2025) (UAS December Public Notice).  A summary of this National Security Determination is available on the Commission’s website at https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/National-Security-Determination-for-UAS.pdf  (Dec. 21, 2025).
  In January 2026, in response to further determinations by the Department of War (DoW), PSHSB removed certain UAS and UAS critical components from the Covered List temporarily through January 2027; the removals applied to equipment on the Defense Contract Management Agency’s (DCMA) Blue UAS Cleared List and to equipment qualifying as “domestic end products” under the Buy American standard. Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau Announces Exemption of Certain Uncrewed Aircraft Systems (UAS) and UAS Critical Components from FCC Covered List, WC Docket No. 18-89, Public Notice, DA 26-22 (Jan. 7, 2026) (Second UAS Public Notice).
  PSHSB later removed specific models of covered UAS and UAS critical components from the Covered List pursuant to Conditional Approvals granted by DoW for limited time periods. For a full list of the conditional approvals, see FCC, List of Equipment and Services Covered by Section 2 of the Secure Networks Act, https://www.fcc.gov/supplychain/coveredlist (last visited June 10, 2026).

6. The Commission has a statutory obligation to regulate the nation’s communications infrastructure for, among other things, the purpose of national defense. 47 U.S.C. § 151.
  Given the Commission’s role in protecting the communications networks from the national security risks covered equipment and services pose, it is uniquely imperative that regulatees respond to Commission orders. After all, as the Commission has repeatedly stated, “[i]t is obvious and unarguable that no governmental interest is more compelling than the security of the Nation.”  See, e.g., Protecting Our Communications Networks by Promoting Transparency Regarding Foreign Adversary Control, GN Docket No. 25-166, Report and Order, para. 101, (Jan. 29, 2026) (quoting Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280, 307 (1981)).
  Failure to do so obstructs the Commission’s ability to investigate and, where appropriate, address these risks to national security.  
B. Factual Background
7. Company and products sold in the United States.  Cogito is a Hong Kong private limited company designing and selling uncrewed aircraft systems (UAS)—also known as drones—in the United States. Cogito Tech Company Limited, https://www.cogito-techs.com/ (last visited June 17, 2026).  Cogito Tech Company Limited was established on June 17, 2022.  The company’s Hong Kong registration number is 3163603.  Hong Kong Company Directory, https://www.tempb.com/companies/cogito-tech-company-limited/ (last visited June 17, 2026).
  Cogito’s website markets two UAS products: Specta Mini and Specta Air. Cogito Tech Company Limited, https://www.cogito-techs.com/home (last visited June 17, 2026); Specta Drones Manufacturer, https://spectadrone.com (last visited June 17, 2026).
  On its website, the Company provides links to purchase the UAS through Amazon. See Specta Drones Manufacturer, https://spectadrone.com (last visited June 17, 2026) (directing consumers to Amazon to purchase the products).    
  Because Cogito did not respond to the Commission’s LOI, the Commission does not have access to precise information about the manner in which Cogito has marketed its equipment within the United States, including its marketing platforms and venues, the number of Cogito products sold or when the models were marketed in the United States.
8. Cogito’s address of record.  Cogito applied for See Cogito Tech Company Limited, Application for Equipment Authorization (FCC Form 731) (Oct. 25, 2023), https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/ViewExhibitReport.cfm?mode=Exhibits&RequestTimeout=500&calledFromFrame=N&application_id=SUFyFwK8drr0ZaqFccUaig%3D%3D&fcc_id=2BCHV-GL3223 (seeking authorization for Specta remote control, FCC ID: 2BCHV-GL3323); Application for Equipment Authorization (FCC Form 731) (Oct. 25, 2023), https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/ViewExhibitReport.cfm?mode=Exhibits&RequestTimeout=500&calledFromFrame=N&application_id=Mi8uivrB55e9bI8QD7Oa5Q%3D%3D&fcc_id=2BCHV-TQFDUB2 (seeking authorization for Specta Air, FCC ID: 2BCHV-TQFDUB2); Application for Equipment Authorization (FCC Form 731) (Feb. 23, 2024), https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/ViewExhibitReport.cfm?mode=Exhibits&RequestTimeout=500&calledFromFrame=N&application_id=Mi8uivrB55e9bI8QD7Oa5Q%3D%3D&fcc_id=2BCHV-TQFDUB1 (seeking authorization for Specta Mini, FCC ID: 2BCHV-TQFDUB1) (collectively, Cogito’s Applications).
 and received three FCC authorizations between October 25, 2023 and February 23, 2024. See Cogito Tech Company Limited, Grant of Equipment Authorization (Oct. 25, 2023), https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/tcb/reports/Tcb731GrantForm.cfm?mode=COPY&RequestTimeout=500&tcb_code=&application_id=f0Q4iWmn%2B5Nn8WqUf6FZ4Q%3D%3D&fcc_id=2BCHV-GL3323 (granting authorization for Specta remote control, FCC ID: 2BCHV-GL3323).  See also Cogito Tech Company Limited, Grant of Equipment Authorization (Oct. 25, 2023), https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/tcb/reports/Tcb731GrantForm.cfm?mode=COPY&RequestTimeout=500&tcb_code=&application_id=Mi8uivrB55e9bI8QD7Oa5Q%3D%3D&fcc_id=2BCHV-TQFDUB2  (granting authorization for Specta Specta Air, FCC ID: 2BCHV-TQFDUB2); Cogito Tech Company Limited, Grant of Equipment Authorization (Feb. 23, 2024), https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/tcb/reports/Tcb731GrantForm.cfm?mode=COPY&RequestTimeout=500&tcb_code=&application_id=P37cmg2MBww2ptfPor%2FIEA%3D%3D&fcc_id=2BCHV-TQFDUB1 (granting authorization for Specta Mini) (collectively, Cogito’s Authorizations).
  For each application, the Company submitted a letter designating an agent, identifying David Wu as the agent for service of process in the United States for two of the authorizations (2BCHV-TQFDUB2, and 2BCHV-GL3323) and Alan Graham for the other (FCC ID 2BCHV-TQFDUB1). See 47 CFR § 2.911(d)(7) (requiring an applicant for equipment authorizations to designate an agent located in the United States for the purpose of accepting service of process).  See also, e.g., Letter from David Wu, CEO, United Consulting Technology Services Co., Ltd. and Robert Lyu, Certification Manager, Cogito Tech Company Limited, to FCC Equipment Authorization Branch (Oct. 16, 2023) (naming David Wu as the designated agent (Mr. Wu) and Robert Lyu as the applicant for FCC IDs 2BCHV-TQFDUB2, and 2BCHV-GL3323) (Wu Attestation); Letter from Alan Graham, Vishtec LLC, to FCC Authorization and Evaluation Division (naming Alan Graham as the designated agent for FCC ID 2BCHV-TQFDUB1) (Jan. 29, 2024) (Graham Attestation) (collectively, Cogito’s Agent Attestations).
  The attestations listed United Consulting Technology Services Co., Ltd, 17800 Castleton St Suite 665, City of Industry, California 91748 and Vishtec LLC, 9888 W Belleview Ave Ste 2142 Denver CO 80123 as the addresses for service of process. See Cogito’s Agent Attestations.
  The attestations also included the U.S. authorized agent’s email addresses,  David@uc-ts.com, Alan.graham@vish-tec.com, and the applicant’s email address, dept-research@cogito-techs.com.  Each attestation was signed by the designated agent. See id.
 
9. The attestation forms for FCC IDs 2BCHV-TQFDUB2, and 2BCHV-GL3323 also included the following identical acknowledgement, acknowledging Cogito’s acceptance of its continuing obligation to maintain an agent for service:
We, COGITO TECH COMPANY LIMITED and United Consulting Technology Services Co., Ltd. understand and acknowledge the applicants consent and the designated agent’s obligation to accept service of process in the United States for matters related to the applicable equipment, and at the physical U.S. address and email of the designated agent listed above.
We, COGITO TECH COMPANY LIMITED and United Consulting Technology Services Co., Ltd. acknowledge the applicant’s acceptance of its obligation to maintain an agent for service of process in the United States for no less than one year after either the grantee has permanently terminated all marketing and importation of the applicable equipment within the U.S., or the conclusion of any Commission-related administrative or judicial proceeding involving the equipment, whichever is later.  See Wu Attestation.

10. The attestation form for FCC ID 2BCHV-TQFDUB2 also acknowledged Cogito’s acceptance of its continuing obligation to maintain an agent for service:
We are aware of the requirements and responsibilities of the applicant’s agent for service of process as outlined in the FCC section 2.911(d)(7) and Report and Order FCC 22-84 paragraph 63. See Graham Attestation.

11. Investigative history.  In September 2025, the website, DroneXL, published an article DroneXL, DJI Shell Game Exposed: Security Bot Catches DJI’s Fikaxo Proxy Before Congressional Deadline (Sept. 26, 2025), https://dronexl.co/2025/09/26/dji-shell-game-exposed-fikaxo-proxy/ (last visited June 18, 2026); see also DroneXL, Spatial Hover Emerges as Newest DJI Shell Company After Fikaxo Drone Mysteriously Migrates Between Websites, https://dronexl.co/2025/10/03/spatial-hover-dji-shell-company-after-fikaxo-drone/ (last visited June 18, 2026).
 that linked to a GitHub repository in which security researcher Konrad Iturbe developed an automated system to detect hardware copies of certain communications and video surveillance equipment listed in Section 1709 of the FY25 NDAA—equipment that would become covered communications equipment in December when the Commission updated the Covered List. GitHub, KonradIT / dji-front-companies, https://github.com/KonradIT/dji-front-companies (last visited June 18, 2026).  See also UAS December Public Notice.
  Iturbe’s system searched for devices that used a unique proprietary communication protocol and identified that Cogito’s devices incorporated the same unique proprietary protocol used in the now-covered equipment. Id.
 
12. The Bureau opened an investigation and issued an LOI to Cogito on May 8, 2026. Letter of Inquiry from Spectrum Enforcement Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau, to Cogito Tech Company Limited, c/o Alan Graham, Vishtec LLC, U.S. Agent for Service of Process (on file in EB-SED-26-00040760) (Cogito LOI).
  The LOI stated the Bureau was investigating potential violations of 47 U.S.C. § 302a (“Devices which interfere with radio reception”) and 47 CFR parts 1 and 2 (“Practice and Procedure” and “Frequency allocations and radio treaty matters; General rules and regulations”) and requested information to determine whether Cogito’s equipment was disguised covered equipment.  Specifically, the LOI stated that the Bureau was investigating “whether models of RF equipment marketed by the Company within the United States comply with recently enacted regulations.” Cogito LOI at 2.
  The LOI also directed the Company to provide a voucher for certain equipment “to determine the extent to which production of such equipment continues to comply with the data filed by the applicant or on file with the responsible party for equipment subject to Supplier’s Declaration of Conformity.” Id; 47 CFR § 2.945(b)(1).
 The LOI stated that Cogito had a continuing obligation to produce any and all documents and information responsive to the LOI. Cogito LOI at 6.
  The LOI also ordered Cogito to provide a response within 14 calendar days after the date of the LOI, i.e., by May 22, 2026. Id. at 2.
 
13. On May 8, 2026, the Bureau transmitted the LOI by certified mail to the Company and to the U.S. agent’s mailing address specified in Cogito’s Graham Attestation.  On May 13, 2026, the Bureau also served the LOI by email to Cognito’s designated U.S. agents’ email addresses, Alan.graham@vish-tec.com and David@uc-ts.com, specified in Cogito’s Agent Attestations.  Both the email and certified mail copy sent to Alan Graham were returned as undeliverable. See Email Receipt, May 13, 2026 (on file in EB-SED-26-00040760); United States Postal Service, USPS tracking: 70041160000026196957, https://tools.usps.com/tracking/?tLabels= (retrieved June 17, 2026). 
  Conversely, the Bureau received confirmation that the certified mail copy was received by the Company. See Email Receipt, May 27, 2026 (on file in EB-SED-26-00040760); United States Postal Service, USPS tracking:RE914015693us, https://tools.usps.com/tracking/?tLabels= (retrieved June 17, 2026).

14. On May 29, 2026, the Bureau notified Cogito of its failure to respond to the LOI and instructed it to provide a full response to the LOI within seven calendar days (i.e., by June 5, 2026). Letter from Spectrum Enforcement Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau, to Cogito Tech Company Limited, c/o David Wu, United Consulting Technology Services Co., Ltd. , U.S. Agent for Service of Process (on file in EB-SED-26-00040760) (Deficiency Letter).
  The Bureau received confirmation that the emailed Deficiency Letter was delivered to both the Company’s email address and the U.S. agent’s email address specified in the Wu Attestation, See Email Delivery Receipt, May 29, 2026 (on file in EB-SED-26-00040760).
 and that the copy of the Deficiency Letter sent by certified mail was delivered to the U.S. Postal mailing address specified in the Wu Attestation. See United States Postal Service, USPS tracking: 70041160000026197329, https://tools.usps.com/tracking/?tLabels= (retrieved June 17, 2026).
  To date, the Bureau still has received no response to the LOI or the Bureau’s Deficiency Letter.
III. DISCUSSION
15. We find that Cogito apparently willfully or repeatedly violated a Commission order by failing to respond to the Bureau’s LOI.  This apparent violation is punishable by a forfeiture under section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Act. 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B).
  For the apparent violation at issue here, the Bureau proposes a forfeiture of $25,000. 
A. Cogito Apparently Violated Commission Orders by Failing to Respond Timely to a Letter of Inquiry. 
16. Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Act, in part, provides that a person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with a Commission rule or order shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. Id.
  A Commission LOI is an “order” under section 503(b)(1)(B). See, e.g., Neon, 32 FCC Rcd at 7970, para. 16 (2017) (“It is well established that a failure to respond to a Bureau LOI [letter of inquiry] constitutes a violation of a Commission Order.”); Technical Communication Network, LLC, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 1018, 1019, para. 5 (2013) (“The LOI the Bureau directed to TCN served as a legal order of the Commission to produce the requested documents and information.”).
  Accordingly, recipients that fail to respond or fail to provide a complete response to a Commission LOI may be subject to a monetary forfeiture penalty. See supra para. 4.
  Here, the Bureau issued the LOI on May 8, 2026, in which it directed Cogito to respond in 14 days, i.e., by May 22, 2026.  The Commission sent the LOI to both physical U.S. addresses specified in the Graham Attestation through certified mail and the email addresses Cogito had specified as its U.S. agents for service of process.  The LOI stated the continuing nature of Cogito’s obligations to respond. Cogito LOI at 6, 10 (stating that Cogito had a “continuing obligation to supplement its responses” and further stating the “Continuing Nature of Inquiries.  The specific Inquiries made herein are continuing in nature.”)  
  Having not received a timely response from Cogito, on May 29, 2026, the Bureau issued the Deficiency Letter. See Deficiency Letter.
  The Bureau received confirmation that the emailed Deficiency Letter, attaching the LOI, was delivered to Cogito and its Mr. Wu on May 29, 2026. See Email Delivery Receipt, May 29, 2026 (on file in EB-SED-26-00040760).
  The Bureau also received confirmation that the copy of the Deficiency Letter and LOI sent by certified mail was delivered to the U.S. Postal mailing address specified in the Wu Attestation. See United States Postal Service, USPS tracking: 70041160000026197329, https://tools.usps.com/tracking/?tLabels= (retrieved June 17, 2026).
  To this day, the Commission has not received any response from Cogito to the LOI.
17. The public and national security interest implications of failing to respond to this LOI are significant.  The Commission has delegated authority to the Bureau to request information, and the failure to respond or provide a complete response hinders the Bureau’s ability to investigate and therefore fundamentally affects the Bureau’s ability to operate. See supra para. 6.
  This is particularly concerning when, as is the case here, the Bureau’s investigation relates to an LOI target’s potential covert marketing of equipment that has been determined to “pose an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or the safety and security of United States persons.” 47 U.S.C. § 1601(b).
  Accordingly, we find that Cogito apparently willfully violated a Commission order by failing to respond to the LOI.
B. Proposed Forfeiture
18. Section 503(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to impose a forfeiture against any entity that “willfully or repeatedly fail[s] to comply with any of the provisions of [the Act] or of any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission[.]” 47 U.S.C. § 503(b).
  Here, section 503(b)(2)(D), as implemented by section 1.80(b)(10) of the Commission’s rules, authorizes us to assess a forfeiture against Cogito of up to $25,132 for each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $188,491 for a single act or failure to act. See 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D); 47 CFR § 1.80(b)(10) (setting the current inflation adjusted statutory maximum for a violation of 47 U.S.C. § 503 (b)(2)(D) at $188,491).  See Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission’s Rules, Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties to Reflect Inflation, Order, 40 FCC Rcd 25 (EB 2025).
  In exercising our forfeiture authority, we must 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, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.” 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(E). 
  In addition, the Commission has established forfeiture guidelines that set forth base penalties for certain violations and identify criteria that we consider when determining the appropriate penalty in any given case. 47 CFR § 1.80(b)(11), Table 3 and Note 2. 
  Under these guidelines, we may adjust a forfeiture upward for violations that are egregious, intentional, or repeated, or that cause substantial harm or generate substantial economic gain for the violator. Id. § 1.80 (b)(11), Table 3 to Paragraph (b)(11)—Adjustment Criteria for Section 503 Forfeitures; 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, 17098, para. 22 (1997) (Forfeiture Policy Statement), recons. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (noting that “[a]lthough we have adopted the base forfeiture amounts as guidelines to provide a measure of predictability to the forfeiture process, we retain our discretion to depart from the guidelines and issue forfeitures on a case-by-case basis, under our general forfeiture authority contained in Section 503 of the Act”).
  We may adjust a forfeiture downward for violations that are minor, good faith or voluntary disclosure of violations, where there is a history of compliance, or where there is an inability to pay. 47 CFR § 1.80 (b)(11), Table 3 to Paragraph (b)(11).

19. For Cogito’s failure to respond to the LOI and the Deficiency Letter, section 1.80(b) of the Commission’s rules sets a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for each violation for failure to respond to Commission communications. 47 CFR § 1.80(b)(11), Table 1.
  However, we have previously proposed penalties for failure to respond that far exceeded the $4,000 base forfeiture, including cases in which the targets answered some of the LOI questions, but failed to answer them completely or provide all of the required information. See Message Communications, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 29 FCC Rcd 8214, 8217 para.11 (EB 2014) (citing Google, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 27 FCC Rcd 4012 (EB 2012)) (Message Communications NAL). See also Fox Television Stations, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 25 FCC Rcd 7074 (EB 2010).
  Under Commission and Bureau precedent, failure to respond to a Commission order is a continuing violation until cured. Onda Mexicana Radio Group, Inc., Licensee of AM Station WWFL, Clermont, FL, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 29 FCC Rcd 527, 530, para. 8 (EB 2014) (ongoing failure to respond to an NOV can be a continuing violation); Message Communications, 29 FCC Rcd at 8217-18, para. 12 (noting company’s willful disregard of its obligation to comply with LOI continued unabated and that such failure to respond to FCC inquiries is misconduct that “exhibits contempt for the Commission’s authority, and threatens to compromise the Commission’s ability to adequately investigate violations of its rules.”); see also ADMA Telecom, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 26 FCC Rcd 4152, 4155, para. 8 (2011) (construing a carrier's failure to file a required document (a Form 499) with the Commission as a continuing violation until cured); Google Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 27 FCC Rcd 4012, 4033, para. 50 (EB 2012) (Google’s failures to provide information in response to LOI were continuing violations that lasted until cured); LDC Telecomm., Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 27 FCC Rcd 300, 302, para. 8 (EB 2012) (characterizing LDC’s failure to respond to the Bureau’s LOI as “continuous”); Net One Int'l, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 16493, 16496, para. 9 (EB 2011) (advising Net One that its failure “to respond fully to the LOI within ten days of the date of this NAL ... may constitute an additional, continuing violation”); 1st Source Info. Specialists, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 21 FCC Rcd 8193, 8196-97, para. 13 (2006) (characterizing a data broker's failure to respond fully to a Bureau subpoena and a citation the Bureau issued based on that failure as a continuing violation), forfeiture ordered, Forfeiture Order, 22 FCC Rcd 431 (2007). 
  
20. Given the totality of the circumstances, and consistent with the Forfeiture Policy Statement, we conclude that an upward adjustment to a total proposed forfeiture of $25,000 is warranted here because Cogito’s conduct appears egregious, intentional, and continuous. See, e.g., Kenai NAL, 32 FCC Rcd at 2618-19 (applying an upward adjustment for a continuing violation following a failure to respond to communications from the Commission); see also Net One International, Net One LLC, Farrahtel International, LLC, 26 FCC Rcd 16493 (EB 2011) (Net One NAL), forf. ordered, Order of Forfeiture, 29 FCC Rcd 264 (EB 2014), recon. denied, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 30 FCC Rcd 1021 (EB 2015).
  The Commission requires equipment authorization holders to maintain an agent for service of process to ensure it may contact authorization holders.  The Bureau issued the LOI to the email addresses and the mailing addresses specified in the Graham Attestation.  The LOI was also later emailed to Mr. Wu.  The Deficiency Letter was sent by certified mail and by email to the addresses specified in the Wu Attestation.  Cogito has failed to respond to the Bureau’s LOI, despite the Bureau receiving confirmation that the Bureau’s Deficiency Letter, and accompanying copy of the LOI, were successfully delivered to the Company’s and Mr. Wu’s email addresses and to Mr. Wu’s U.S. postal mailing address.  This continues to prevent the Bureau from investigating the serious national security risks described in the LOI, as well as potential rule violations.  As we have noted in previous cases involving a failure to respond to FCC inquiries, “[m]isconduct of this type exhibits contempt for the Commission’s authority[] and threatens to compromise the Commission’s ability to adequately investigate violations of its rules.” Message Communications, 29 FCC Rcd at 8218, para. 12 (citing Net One NAL 26 FCC Rcd at 16495, para. 7).

21. Pursuant to Section 1.80, we also consider whether there is any basis for a downward adjustment of the proposed forfeiture. 47 CFR § 1.80(b)(11), Table 3.
  Compromising the Commission’s ability to investigate potential national security risks is anything but a minor violation, and there is nothing in the record that meets any other criteria that would warrant a downward reduction.  Accordingly, Cogito’s failure to respond to the Bureau’s LOI in the circumstances presented here warrants an upward adjustment for a total proposed forfeiture of $25,000.  
22. We also direct Cogito to respond fully to the LOI within ten (10) calendar days of the date of this NAL.  Failure to do so may constitute an additional, continuing violation subjecting the Company to future enforcement action. 
IV. CONCLUSION
23. We have determined that Cogito apparently willfully or repeatedly failed to respond to an agency order.  As such, Cogito is apparently liable for a forfeiture of $25,000.  
V. ORDERING CLAUSES
24. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 503(b), and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR §§ 0.111, 0.311, 1.80, Cogito Tech Company Limited is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) for willful or repeated violations of an agency order. 
25. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR § 1.80, within thirty (30) calendar days of the release date of this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, Cogito Tech Company Limited SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture consistent with paragraph 29 below.
26. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, Cogito Tech Company Limited SHALL FULLY RESPOND, not later than ten (10) calendar days from the release date of this NAL, to the Bureau’s letter of inquiry dated May 8, 2026, in accordance with the delivery instructions set forth therein.
27. In order for Cogito Tech Company Limited to pay the proposed forfeiture, Cogito Tech Company Limited shall notify the Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission at EB-SED-Response@fcc.gov of its intent to pay, whereupon an invoice will be posted in the Commission’s Registration System (CORES) at https://apps.fcc.gov/cores/userLogin.do.  Upon payment, Cogito Tech Company Limited shall send electronic notification of payment to the Spectrum Enforcement Division at EB-SED-Response@fcc.gov on the date said payment is made.  Payment of the forfeiture must be made by credit card using CORES at https://apps.fcc.gov/cores/userLogin.do, ACH (Automated Clearing House) debit from a bank account, or by wire transfer from a bank account.  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: For questions regarding payment procedures, please contact the Financial Operations Group Help Desk by phone at 1-877-480-3201 (option #6).

· Payment by wire transfer must be made to ABA Number 021030004, receiving bank TREAS/NYC, and Account Number 27000001.  In the OBI field, enter the FRN(s) captioned above and the letters “FORF”.  In addition, a completed Form 159 FCC Form 159 is accessible at https://www.fcc.gov/licensing-databases/fees/fcc-remittance-advice-form-159.
 or printed CORES form Information completed using the Commission’s Registration System (CORES) does not require the submission of an FCC Form 159.  CORES is accessible at https://apps.fcc.gov/cores/userLogin.do.
 must be faxed to the Federal Communications Commission at 202-418-2843 or e-mailed to RROGWireFaxes@fcc.gov on the same business day the wire transfer is initiated.  Failure to provide all required information in Form 159 or CORES may result in payment not being recognized as having been received.  When completing FCC Form 159 or CORES, 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). Instructions for completing the form may be obtained at http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form159/159.pdf. 
  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 CORES at https://apps.fcc.gov/cores/userLogin.do.  To pay by credit card, log-in using the FCC Username associated to the FRN captioned above.  If payment must be split across FRNs, complete this process for each FRN.  Next, select “Manage Existing FRNs | FRN Financial | Bills & Fees” from the CORES Menu, then select FRN Financial and the view/make payments option next to the FRN.  Select the “Open Bills” tab and find the bill number associated with the NAL Acct. No.  The bill number is the NAL Acct. No. with the first two digits excluded (e.g., NAL 1912345678 would be associated with FCC Bill Number 12345678).  After selecting the bill for payment, 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 CORES at https://apps.fcc.gov/cores/userLogin.do.  To pay by ACH, log in using the FCC Username associated to the FRN captioned above.  If payment must be split across FRNs, complete this process for each FRN.  Next, select “Manage Existing FRNs | FRN Financial | Bills & Fees” on the CORES Menu, then select FRN Financial and the view/make payments option next to the FRN. Select the “Open Bills” tab and find the bill number associated with the  NAL Acct. No.  The bill number is the NAL Acct. No. with the first two digits excluded (e.g., NAL 1912345678 would be associated with FCC Bill Number 12345678).  Finally, choose the “Pay from Bank Account” option.  Please contact the appropriate financial institution to confirm the correct Routing Number and the correct account number from which payment will be made and verify with that financial institution that the designated account has authorization to accept ACH transactions.
28. Any request for making full payment over time under an installment plan should be sent to:  Chief Financial Officer—Financial Operations, Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street, NE, Washington, D.C. 20554. See 47 CFR § 1.1914.
  Questions regarding payment procedures should be directed to the Financial Operations Group Help Desk by phone, 1-877-480-3201, or by e-mail, ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov.
29. The written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture, if any, must include a detailed factual statement supported by appropriate documentation and affidavits pursuant to sections 1.16 and 1.80(g)(3) of the Commission’s rules. Id. §§ 1.16, 1.80(g)(3).
  The written statement must be mailed to the Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street, NE, Washington, D.C. 20554, ATTN:  Enforcement Bureau – Spectrum Enforcement Division, and must include the NAL/Account Number referenced in the caption.  The statement must also be e-mailed to the Spectrum Enforcement Division at EB-SED-Response@fcc.gov. 
30. The Commission will not consider reducing or canceling a forfeiture in response to a claim of inability to pay unless the petitioner submits the following documentation:  (1) federal tax returns for the past three years; (2) financial statements for the past three years prepared according to generally accepted accounting practices; or (3) some other reliable and objective documentation that accurately reflects the petitioner’s current financial status. 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(E).
  Any claim of inability to pay must specifically identify the basis for the claim by reference to the financial documentation.  Inability to pay, however, is only one of several factors that the Commission will consider in determining the appropriate forfeiture, and we retain the discretion to decline reducing or canceling the forfeiture if other prongs of 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(E) support that result. See, e.g., Ocean Adrian Hinson, Surry County, North Carolina, Forfeiture Order, 34 FCC Rcd 7619, 7621, para. 9 & n.21 (2019); Vearl Pennington and Michael Williamson, Forfeiture Order, 34 FCC Rcd 770, paras. 18-21 (2019); Fabrice Polynice, Harold Sido and Veronise Sido, North Miami, Florida, Forfeiture Order, 33 FCC Rcd 6852, 6860-62, paras. 21-25 (2018); Adrian Abramovich, Marketing Strategy Leaders, Inc., and Marketing Leaders, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 33 FCC Rcd 4663, 4678-79, paras. 44-45 (2018); Purple Communications, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 30 FCC Rcd 14892, 14903-04, paras. 32-33 (2015); TV Max, Inc., et al., Forfeiture Order, 29 FCC Rcd 8648, 8661, para. 25 (2014).
  
31. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture shall be sent by first class mail and certified mail, return receipt requested, to Cogito Tech Company Limited c/o United Consulting Technology Services Co., Ltd., 17800 Castleton ST, STE 665, City of Industry, CA 91748, Attn: David Wu, U.S. Agent for Service of Process and to Cogito Tech Company Limited c/o Vishtec LLC, 9888 W Belleview Ave., Ste 2142, Denver CO 80123, Attn: Alan Graham, and by email to David@uc-ts.com and Alan.graham@vish-tec.com.
						FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



						
Patrick Webre
Chief
Enforcement Bureau

2