Written by Marcus Wolter, Bianca Lindau, Takahiro Miyazaki, and Zhaohui Wang
Japan, the European Union, and the United States are leaders in the global unmanned aerial vehicle (“UAV”, commonly known as drone) market, each developing distinct approaches to balancing safety, innovation, and commercial accessibility. While all three employ risk-based frameworks, with simpler requirements for smaller, lower-risk drones and stricter rules for more complex operations, their implementation varies in terms of startup-friendliness. The EU and the U.S. actively lower barriers for new entrants operating lower-risk drones, while Japan’s technically rigorous approach creates a more complex compliance landscape for startups. All three systems scale regulatory burdens to operational risk, but Japan’s multi-agency requirements and pre-approval demands for advanced operations show how similar risk philosophies can yield very different innovation environments.
Japan: Safety-First But Pragmatic
Japan regulates unmanned aircraft vehicles under the Civil Aeronautics Act, which applies to drones weighing more than 100 g,[1] the Act Prohibiting UAVs’ Flights Over Important Facilities and Surrounding Areas (aka the Drone Act),[2] which governs all unmanned aircraft, the Civil Code, the Radio Wave Act and local regulations (jourei) passed by local governments. The Civil Aeronautics Act is the key piece of legislation for aviation safety in Japan and it sets out operating limitations, including for prohibited airspace for flight and penalties for violations. UAV operations are classified into one of three categories based on the associated risks. Category I covers the operation of UAVs with the lowest risk. These include UAVs, which do not fly in prohibited airspaces but fly within the limitations of permitted operating conditions. Category I UAVs do not require any permission or approval. Both Category II and Category III are operations in prohibited airspaces and beyond the limitations of permitted operating conditions. The main distinction is that Category III covers the operation of UAVs in an airspace where a third party may be present below if measures to restrict and control the comings and goings of third parties underneath the flight path are not taken, whereas Category II covers the operation of UAVs in an airspace where such measures are taken.
Additionally, through joint efforts of the private and public sectors, the Council to Improve the Environment regarding UAVs (the “Council”) was set up in 2015. The Council focuses on discussing regulations to develop the commercial use of UAVs, as well as regularly revising the “Roadmap towards the Industrial Revolution in the Air” (the “Roadmap”). The various iterations of the Roadmap describe four phases on the use of UAVs. In phases one and two, UAVs may be flown within a visual line of sight, whereby phase 1 encompasses remotely piloted UAVs. In phase three, UAVs may be flown beyond a visual line of sight (“BVLOS”) over areas where it is unlikely to be populated (such as mountains, sea, rivers, lakes, and forests). In phase four, UAVs may be flown BVLOS over areas that may be populated. Most recently, and in line with amendments made to the CAA with the aim of achieving the fourth phase as scheduled in previous Roadmaps, the 2024 restructured Roadmap replaced descriptions of each phase with the promotion of the usage of drones in multiple areas, including cargo delivery, the realization of the UAV traffic management system, and the development of technology to operate multiple UAVs at the same time as of fiscal year 2025.
The Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (“MLIT”) is the principal regulator of aviation matters and oversees registration, mandatory remote-ID broadcasts (broadcasting a drone’s identity mid-flight), and pre-flight approvals for advanced operations, such as BVLOS or night flying.[3] It should be noted that Defense UAVs face additional Ministry of Defense testing protocols and export licensing under METI’s Foreign Exchange and Foreign Trade Act (“FEFTA”).[4] All operators and manufacturers must navigate this layered framework to conduct both civil and defense drone activities.
EU/Germany: Harmonized but Rigorous
The European Union’s unmanned aircraft system (“UAS”) regulations are governed by two key pieces of legislation: Regulation (EU) 2019/947[5] and Regulation (EU) 2019/945,[6] which together establish three risk-based categories: Open (low risk), Specific (medium risk), and Certified (high risk). These Regulations apply uniformly across all 27 Member States, including Germany, to ensure harmonized safety and operational requirements. EU-wide rules mean that a drone operator with a certificate of competency obtained in Germany can operate their drone in all European Union Member States. The system breaks down into three clear risk categories: For casual flyers, the ‘Open’ category keeps things simple with 120m altitude limits and basic CE-marking requirements. Generally, these are not operated directly over people, subject to certain exceptions, are maintained in visual line of sight or the remote pilot is assisted by a UA observer and does not carry any dangerous goods nor drops any material. It should be noted that as of January 1, 2024, operations in the ‘Open’ category must be conducted either with a drone bearing a C0, C1, C2, C3, or C4 class identification label or privately built or even without a class identification label, but only if placed on the market before December 31, 2023. If a drone falls outside of the requirements of the ‘Open’ category, it generally falls under the ‘Specific’ category, where operators must navigate several regulatory hurdles, including completing a detailed risk assessment and obtaining approval from national aviation authorities, which in Germany is the Deutsche Flugsicherung or German Federal Aviation Office. At the top tier, the ‘Certified’ category deals with operations with the highest level of risk, treating drones like traditional aircraft, requiring full EASA certification.
U.S.: Structured Flexibility with Waivers
The U.S. governs drones with a three-tiered system that keeps regulations light for small aircraft while tightening rules as complexity rises in the drone. Firstly, 14 C.F.R. Part 107 permits operators to fly drones up to 55 pounds during the daytime and within line of sight without obtaining individual aircraft certifications, promoting drone development by lowering entry barriers.[7] Furthermore, for advanced testing, night, BVLOS, and flying over people, developers must obtain waivers under Part 107.200.[8] Lastly, for heavy or high-risk systems, drone testing would require a type certification, i.e. approval of the design of the aircraft and all of its component parts, under 14 C.F.R. Part 21.[9] It should be noted that the Federal Aviation Administration has established and continues to maintain a UAS Test Site Program for the purpose of verifying the safety of public and civil UAS, operations, and related navigation procedures before their integration into the National Air Space System. Further, in the past week, President Donald Trump signed two executive orders designed to accelerate UAS adoption, stimulate domestic manufacturing, and expand protections against unauthorized or hostile drone use.
Impact on Innovators in the Drone Industry
Japan, the EU, and the U.S., the three largest drone markets, each apply a risk-based model that lowers entry barriers for basic drones while imposing stricter rules on advanced systems. The EU’s uniform Open/Specific/Certified categories and the U.S.’s Part 107 tiered regulation system make it easy for startups to prototype and field test small drones with minimal overhead. In contrast, Japan’s stricter regime, layered with defense export controls, requires multiple pre-approvals and agency sign-offs even for mid-risk operations, raising compliance costs and slowing time-to-market. Japan’s stringent drone regulations emphasize the country’s cautious approach to technology, in particular to promote the goals of public safety and privacy. Despite strict regulation, Japan’s drone industry continues to grow. Companies in fields such as construction, agriculture, and logistics are finding creative ways to work within these regulations to harness the potential of drones.
By clearly scaling regulatory demands to operational risk, all three frameworks encourage early-stage experimentation and provide defined certification pathways for more complex technologies. However, where European and U.S.-based innovators benefit from predictable testing pathways and adaptive waiver systems, their peers in Japan must navigate a more rigid, multi-stakeholder authorization process that may disadvantage rapid iteration and time-sensitive commercialization.
Regulation inevitably places “guardrails” on drone innovation—but it’s not inherently a barrier. Indeed, in Japan, the U.S., and Germany, structured frameworks offer legal clarity and controlled paths for testing, so long as best-in-class documentation and safety protocols are adhered to. The key for developers and legal advisors is not to circumvent regulation—but to strategically engage with it to enable innovation in a legally secure environment.
This publication is distributed with the understanding that the author, publisher, and distributor of this publication and/or any linked publication are not rendering legal, accounting, or other professional advice or opinions on specific facts or matters and, accordingly, assume no liability whatsoever in connection with its use. Pursuant to applicable rules of professional conduct, portions of this publication may constitute Attorney Advertising. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.
[1] Civil Aeronautics Act (2006) https://www.cas.go.jp/jp/seisaku/hourei/data/caa.pdf.
[2] National Police Agency of Japan. The Drone Act. https://www.npa.go.jp/english/uas/uas.html.
[3] Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism. Flight Rules for Unmanned Aircraft (Drones and Model Aircraft, etc.). https://www.mlit.go.jp/en/koku/uas.html.
[4] Security Export Guidance. Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. (n.d.). https://www.meti.go.jp/policy/anpo/seminer/shiryo/guidance_english.pdf.
[5] Commission Regulation 2019/947, 2019 O.J. (L152) 45. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02019R0945-20200809.
[6] Commission Regulation 2019/945, 2019 O.J. (L 152) 1. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32019R0945.
[7] Code for Federal Regulation (2016). PART 107—SMALL UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-107.
[8] FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 (2018). https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/302#:~:text=(Sec.,for%20educational%20or%20research%20purposes.
[9] Code of Federal Regulation (2025) PART 21—CERTIFICATION PROCEDURES FOR PRODUCTS AND ARTICLES https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-C/part-21.