US Drone State Laws: California vs Texas 2026

The two largest commercial drone markets in the United States — California and Texas — operate under significantly different state law overlays on top of the federal 14 CFR Part 107 and 49 U.S.C. § 44809 framework. California emphasizes individual privacy and emergency operations protection; Texas emphasizes critical infrastructure protection and itemizes prohibited surveillance targets. Operators working across both states must understand both frameworks plus the federal preemption boundary.

This article delivers the 2026 state law comparison, the federal preemption principle, and the operator's practical compliance approach for cross-state work.

1. The Federal Preemption Principle

Before comparing state law, understand the federal-state boundary. Under 49 U.S.C. § 40103, FAA holds exclusive authority over navigable airspace. States and localities cannot regulate:

• Altitude restrictions in airspace
• Flight paths over private property (airspace, not trespass)
• Remote ID broadcast requirements
• Pilot certification under Part 107

States and localities can regulate:

• Launch and landing locations
• Privacy and surveillance
• Trespass (landing on private property)
• Critical infrastructure no-fly zones (must not conflict with FAA airspace rules)
• Noise ordinances at ground level
• Penalty provisions for state-prohibited offenses

49 U.S.C. § 40103: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/40103

2. California Drone Law Framework

California has enacted multiple statutes directly addressing drone operations. The most significant:

2-1. Cal. Civ. Code § 1708.8 — Physical Invasion of Privacy

Under California Civil Code § 1708.8, a person commits "physical invasion of privacy" when they knowingly enter onto another's land — including via drone — without permission and capture or attempt to capture imagery, sound, or other physical impressions of the plaintiff in a manner that is offensive to a reasonable person.

The statute creates civil liability with damages, and is widely cited in drone-related California privacy litigation.

2-2. Emergency Response Operations

Under California state law, drone operations over emergency response scenes (wildfires, medical evacuations, accident scenes) without authorization from the controlling public safety agency may constitute a misdemeanor. This is in addition to FAA TFR violations.

2-3. State Government Property Restrictions

California restricts drone launches and landings from state government property without authorization. Park-specific rules apply at California State Parks.

2-4. Privacy and Recording Statutes

California's general privacy and recording statutes (Cal. Penal Code § 632 — eavesdropping, Cal. Civ. Code § 3344 — right of publicity) apply to drone-captured imagery and audio in the same manner as ground-based recording.

3. Texas Drone Law Framework

Texas takes a different approach, emphasizing critical infrastructure and itemized prohibited targets.

3-1. Tex. Gov't Code Ch. 423 — Use of Unmanned Aircraft

Texas Government Code Chapter 423 itemizes specific prohibited surveillance targets, including:

• Critical infrastructure (oil refineries, electrical generating facilities, electrical substations, water treatment facilities, military installations, etc.)
• Sports venues
• Correctional facilities
• Concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs)

The statute prohibits drones from capturing images of these facilities without permission. Violations may be misdemeanors with civil and criminal penalties.

3-2. Real Estate Marketing Exception

Texas Gov't Code Chapter 423 includes specific exemptions for real estate marketing — drones may be used to capture imagery for the purposes of marketing a property for sale or lease, with the property owner's consent.

3-3. Privacy and Trespass

Texas common law trespass and privacy statutes apply to drone operations. Capturing imagery of private property without consent may be actionable.

3-4. Critical Infrastructure Specificity

Texas's emphasis on critical infrastructure reflects the state's energy economy. The list of protected facilities is detailed in the statute and is broader than most other states.

4. Side-by-Side Comparison

5. Federal Compliance — Identical in Both States

Federal Part 107 compliance does not vary by state:

• Part 107 Remote Pilot Certificate (or TRUST for recreational)
• Aircraft registration via FAA DroneZone ($5)
• Remote ID broadcast under 14 CFR Part 89
• LAANC airspace authorization for Class B/C/D/E
• 400 ft AGL altitude limit under § 107.51(b)
• VLOS requirement under § 107.31

eCFR Part 107: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-107

6. Cross-State Operator Workflow

For an operator working across both California and Texas:

Pre-Engagement Review

1. Federal compliance: confirm Part 107 currency, aircraft registration, Remote ID, LAANC capability
2. California-specific: review § 1708.8 implications for the planned operation; obtain property owner consent in writing
3. Texas-specific: review Tex. Gov't Code Ch. 423 — verify operation does not capture imagery of itemized prohibited targets without permission
4. Local: verify city/county ordinances at the operating location

Documentation

1. Federal compliance documentation (Part 107 certificate, aircraft registration, LAANC authorization)
2. State-specific consent forms (property owner consent, neighbor consent if relevant)
3. Privacy disclosure documentation
4. Insurance documentation valid in both states

Execution

1. Pre-flight check including state-specific considerations
2. Operating discipline appropriate to local rules (e.g., flight path planning to avoid framing neighboring properties)
3. Documentation of any incidents

Post-Operation

1. Comprehensive flight log
2. Imagery review for state-specific privacy concerns before delivery
3. Retention of all documentation for at least 3 years

7. Common Cross-State Compliance Errors

Error 1 — Treating federal compliance as sufficient Federal Part 107 compliance is necessary but not sufficient. State and local laws apply.

Error 2 — Applying California rules in Texas (or vice versa) The two states have substantively different frameworks. Operators must understand each.

Error 3 — Ignoring Texas critical infrastructure list Operating near refineries, substations, or other infrastructure without permission can trigger Texas Gov't Code Ch. 423 violations.

Error 4 — Capturing California neighboring property imagery California § 1708.8 may be triggered by drone framing that intrudes on a neighbor's reasonable expectation of privacy.

Error 5 — Operating during California emergency response without authorization Operating drone flights near California wildfires or emergency scenes may trigger state-level criminal exposure in addition to FAA TFR violations.

Error 6 — Missing local ordinance research Major cities in both states (Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, Austin, Houston, Dallas, San Antonio) have additional local ordinances on launches/landings and operational hours.

8. Other High-Volume States — Brief Overview

For operations across multiple states, the practical approach: federal Part 107 baseline + state-by-state research before each operation in an unfamiliar jurisdiction.

9. The MmowW Service Scope

MmowW Drone provides federal FAA compliance tools: pilot certification tracking, aircraft registration management, LAANC integration, flight logging, and § 107.9 reporting workflow. State and local law compliance is the operator's separate responsibility.

The MmowW Terms of Service and Disclaimer explicitly note that the platform does not constitute legal advice and does not address state/local regulatory requirements.

For state law compliance, operators should engage state-licensed counsel and rely on state-published statutes and case law for specific guidance.

10. Best Practice Workflow for Multi-State Operators

1. Maintain federal compliance baseline — Part 107, aircraft registration, Remote ID, LAANC
2. Research state law before each jurisdiction operation — California § 1708.8, Texas Gov't Code Ch. 423, etc.
3. Maintain insurance valid in all operating states
4. Use written client contracts that address state-specific privacy / consent
5. Document compliance state-by-state — separate compliance memos for each major operating jurisdiction
6. Engage local counsel for complex operations — particularly those near critical infrastructure or in privacy-sensitive contexts

A SaaS like MmowW Drone tracks federal compliance baseline, surfacing each pilot's currency, each aircraft's registration, and each operation's LAANC authorization — supporting the federal foundation upon which state and local compliance is built.

Comply with FAA Drone Regulations Using MmowW Drone

Track every Part 107 requirement automatically.

Pilot certification, aircraft registration, flight logs, incident reporting — all in one SaaS.

Start Free Trial →

Disclaimer

This article provides legal information, not legal advice. MmowW Drone is operated by a licensed Gyoseishoshi (行政書士) office in Japan. We are not US attorneys or licensed FAA legal counsel. For binding legal opinions on FAA compliance or state-specific law, consult a US-licensed aviation or state-licensed privacy attorney.

Sources

1. 49 U.S.C. § 40103 (Cornell Law) — https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/40103
2. 14 CFR Part 107 (eCFR) — https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-107
3. FAA UAS Main Portal — https://www.faa.gov/uas
4. FAA DroneZone — https://faadronezone-access.faa.gov/
5. FAA LAANC — https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/laanc