The advent of drones has led to calls for new law to regulate the skies. One such proposal from the Uniform Law Commission is causing a stir in the United States. <https://www.cfr.org/blog/drone-revolution-shakes-tort-law> [...] The draft act contains two fundamental proposals. First, it contains a “new bright line” rule. Any intrusion—even those that cause no harm—by an unmanned aircraft into airspace above private property up to 200 feet without the owner’s consent constitutes a trespass, with exceptions, including for conduct during emergencies or pursuant to a court order. Second, the draft act creates the tort of acquiring images, recordings, or physical or electronic impressions of private acts or trade secrets with a drone in a manner highly offensive to a reasonable person, excluding acquisitions protected by the First Amendment or that conform to the Fourth Amendment, a warrant, or court order. The proposals provoked criticism, especially from drone companies and industry associations [PDF] and alliances [PDF]. Negative reactions included, among others, assertations that the draft act: Interfered with the federal government’s exclusive authority to regulate the nation’s airspace and to pre-empt state and local regulations on drones; Ignored that existing tort law on aerial trespass developed with manned aircraft in mind, which requires a showing of substantial interference with property rights, is very appropriate to apply to drones; and Created new rules on property and privacy rights that will spawn litigation and uncertainty for drone operators and inhibit innovation and development of commercial opportunities. The draft act has defenders too. Jason Snead of the Heritage Foundation argued that the act’s “bright line aerial trespass standard balances the interests of the nascent [unmanned aerial systems] sector with the traditional rights of property owners to exclude unwanted intruders from their property.” Reginald Govan, former FAA chief counsel, dismissed the notion that the FAA’s rules had pre-empted state and local governments from regulating how drones affect property rights. Govan also argued that, absent federal legislation, state governments have the authority “to protect privacy through trespassory tort doctrines,” as proposed by the draft act. [...]