Ukrainians sue US manufacturer over use of tech by Russian drone ‘hunters’

According to the US law firm representing them, family members of the group were either killed or injured in Russian drone and drone-assisted attacks.

The individuals assert that encrypted radio bridge antennas produced by Ubiquiti Inc. were used to facilitate those attacks and have accused the company of “knowingly, or with willful blindness” supplying the products to Russia in violation of a US export ban via “a smugglers’ network of straw purchasers”. In addition, they claim Ubiquiti has refused to include “kill-switch safeguards” in the product’s designs. The “foreseeable result” of this is that “Russia hunts civilians using the command-and-control system Ubiquiti supplied”, according to the claims (50-page / 1MB PDF).

Out-Law has asked Ubiquiti for comment.

The case comes at a time where manufacturers globally are producing increasingly sophisticated, connected, products, harnessing the power of AI and other digital technologies. Experts at Pinsent Masons highlighted how the legal framework in Europe is changing in response to these technological developments.

Laura Gillespie of Pinsent Masons said: “Manufacturers are operating within an evolving liability framework for software, AI and digital products under the new EU Product Liability Directive, which member states must transpose by 9 December 2026. Across the EU, the product liability regime is expanding to expressly include standalone software.”

Gillespie said that while the EU Product Liability Directive will apply in Northern Ireland, the position in the rest of the UK is different. She said the UK Jurisdiction Taskforce (UKJT) had undertaken some leading analysis on liability for AI harms under the private law of England and Wales, having published its final legal statement earlier this summer.

Gillespie said: “The UKJT’s final legal statement identifies two potential avenues for redress for AI-related harms: breach of contract and negligence, while the Consumer Protection Act 1987 focuses on liability for defective products. The Law Commission of England and Wales is currently reviewing the law relating to liability for defective products, with a public consultation on proposed reforms expected later this year. Given the pace of technological development, it is difficult to foresee a situation where the Law Commission would not recommend that future legislative changes will introduce more specific provisions addressing liability for software.”

Fiona Cameron, also of Pinsent Masons, added: “This case follows a trend of widening the net of potential liability, increasing the risk on manufacturers and other supply chain actors for the end use of their products.  Risk assessments must be taken seriously, particularly in light of upcoming changes in the EU and UK.”