The Villages Issues Cease and Desist to Drone Pilots: Complex Legal Battle Takes Flight

A major retirement community in Florida has ordered drone pilots to stop filming construction sites, igniting a complex Legal battle over airspace rights, property laws, and information control. Several drone operators received cease and desist letters threatening potential legal action, highlighting the ongoing tension between federal airspace regulations and state property laws, reports Villages-News.

Legal Clash: FAA Authority vs. Florida State Law

The Villages, one of America’s largest retirement communities, deployed its legal team from Carlton Fields to ground drone pilots who have been documenting construction progress. Attorney William Giltinan, representing the Holding Company of The Villages Inc., cited Florida Statutes Section 934.50 in cease and desist letters ordering pilots to halt flights over construction sites and remove existing videos within 14 days.

From the letter:

“As you may not be aware, there are laws prohibiting the use of drones to take videos or photographs of private property without the owner’s permission. For example, Florida Statutes Section 934.50 defines “surveillance” to include “[w]ith respect to privately owned real property, the observation of such property’s physical improvements with sufficient visual clarity to be able to determine unique identifying features or its occupancy by one or more persons.” Section 3 then goes on to prohibit “use [of] a drone equipped with an imaging device to record an image of privately owned real property or of the owner, tenant, occupant, invitee, or licensee of such property with the intent to conduct surveillance on the individual or property captured in the image in violation of such person’s reasonable expectation of privacy without his or her written consent.” Section 5(b) then provides that an aggrieved property owner may initiate a civil action and, when successful, recover their attorneys’ fees in addition to other damages. Given that your videos clearly use drone imaging to conduct unauthorized surveillance of private property owned by The Villages Companies, and the persons working on those properties, we believe that they were, and continue to be, taken in violation of this statute.”

The legal notice relies on Florida’s drone surveillance law, which states: A person may not use a drone equipped with an imaging device to record an image of privately owned real property with the intent to conduct surveillance without written consent if a reasonable expectation of privacy exists. The law presumes property owners have a reasonable expectation of privacy on their land if they aren’t observable by people at ground level, regardless of whether they’re visible from the air.

However, this state law operates within the complex framework of federal aviation regulations. Federal law (the Air Commerce Act) gives the U.S. Government exclusive control over navigable airspace, [through which the public has a right to travel]. This federal preemption creates a legal gray area that complicates enforcement of state-level drone restrictions.

“So if anyone is wondering what was the cause of the c&d letter Scott, Doug, Mario, I, and others received, one only need look at today Daily Sun. They are trying to copy what we’ve been doing and don’t want to be scooped. Instead of doing it better they lawyer up to shut us up. My overall response to this is – Game On B!t.h!” Said Don Wiley.

Do Property Owners Have Legal Standing?

The Villages’ cease and desist letters present a complex legal question that doesn’t have a simple answer.

While the FAA controls airspace nationwide, the FAA recognizes that drone safety is a partnership with local, state, tribal, and territorial government entities who have rights to regulate where drones are allowed to take off and land. This creates a two-tier regulatory system.

Florida’s anti-surveillance drone law gives property owners significant protection. The state attorney general has determined that a municipal ordinance prohibiting private individuals from using drones for surveillance that violates privacy rights of residents is not preempted by section 934.50. This suggests state courts might uphold The Villages’ complaint if the drone flights are deemed surveillance rather than news gathering.

The critical question becomes whether documenting construction sites constitutes “surveillance” under Florida law, and whether The Villages can demonstrate a “reasonable expectation of privacy” for construction sites that are visible from various vantage points.

Commercial Drone Pilot Stands His Ground

The most prominent target appears to be Don Wiley, a licensed commercial drone pilot who operates Gold Wingnut Productions. For over six years, Wiley has meticulously documented construction in The Villages, combining drone imagery with public records to provide residents with insights into upcoming additions to the community.

Wiley, who also serves as a Sumter County commissioner, views the legal threat as an attempt to monopolize information. “It’s an attempt to control the narrative and flow of information in the community,” he told Villages-News. “I pride myself on getting to the facts and getting them out there.”

The situation is further complicated by Wiley’s dual role as both content creator and public official. His 2024 re-election campaign to the Sumter County commission was reportedly funded largely by loyalists to The Villages’ developer, creating potential conflicts of interest in this dispute.

Information Control or Legitimate Legal Concerns?

Wiley claims The Villages wants to funnel all construction updates exclusively through its own media channels—The Villages Daily Sun newspaper and Vmail videos hosted by Jennifer Parr, vice president of The Villages and head of Properties.

His suspicions were heightened when The Villages Daily Sun recently launched a new feature with staff writer Keith Pearlman covering construction developments—complete with drone imagery of the new Eastport section prominently featured on the newspaper’s front page. This timing suggests the cease and desist letters might be aimed at eliminating competition rather than protecting privacy.

Legal Implications and Potential Defenses

Drone operators like Wiley may have several potential defenses against The Villages’ claims:

1. Public Interest Documentation: They could argue their flights document matters of public interest rather than conducting surveillance, particularly if construction affects community residents.
2. First Amendment Protection: Documenting construction as a form of news gathering might be protected as free speech, especially when combined with public records.
3. Selective Enforcement: The Villages’ own use of drone imagery in their newspaper could undermine claims about privacy expectations for construction sites.
4. Federal Preemption: While state laws can regulate certain aspects of drone operations, federal airspace laws take precedence over state drone laws. If a state or local law directly conflicts with FAA regulations, the state or local law is likely to be invalidated.

However, the drone pilots face significant legal risks. The cease and desist letter specifically warns recipients about potential financial consequences, noting that “an aggrieved property owner may initiate a civil action and, when successful, recover their attorneys’ fees in addition to other damages.” Given the resources of The Villages and its legal team, this represents a formidable threat.

What’s Next for The Villages Drone Dispute

Despite the 14-day compliance deadline and threat of costly litigation, Wiley has publicly stated he will not remove his videos. He has promised to address the issue during his YouTube show, suggesting this battle over aerial access and information rights is just beginning.

The outcome could establish important precedents for drone operators nationwide, particularly those documenting construction and development in residential communities. It may also force courts to more clearly define the boundaries between federal airspace authority and state property protections in the age of accessible Drone Technology.

DroneXL’s Take

This case highlights the challenging intersection of federal airspace regulations, state privacy laws, and information rights. While property owners have legitimate privacy concerns, the selective enforcement against independent drone operators while using similar imagery in the community’s own publications suggests this may be more about controlling information than protecting privacy.

For drone operators documenting construction, the safest approach remains obtaining permission when possible, maintaining reasonable distances, and focusing on matters of genuine public interest rather than intrusive surveillance of private activities. However, the public’s right to information about community development that affects their neighborhoods represents a compelling counterbalance to overly restrictive interpretations of privacy laws.

As drone technology continues to democratize access to aerial perspectives, we expect to see more cases challenging the boundaries between private property rights and the public’s right to document matters of community concern.

Photos courtesy of Don Wiley