FOLLOW US

By Samuel Lopez | USA Herald | October 20, 2025

MIAMI, FL - The recent exposure of the Starshield network’s transmissions — “downlinks” from space to Earth on frequencies (2025-2110 MHz) dedicated by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) to Earth-to-space uplinks only — raises profound legal questions under both international and domestic space-law frameworks.

At the international level, the foundational treaty is the Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects (“Liability Convention”), which in Article II establishes that a launching State is absolutely liable for damage caused by its space objects on the surface of the Earth or to aircraft in flight. UNOOSA

In outer space, liability is fault-based. But notably, no claim has ever been successfully made under this convention for in-orbit or spectrum interference damages. Georgetown Law

Moreover, space objects must be registered under the Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space, and the launching state retains supervisory responsibility under the Outer Space Treaty (OST) Article VI.

Domestically in the U.S., regulatory oversight of spectrum is vested in the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), while launch/re-entry licensing falls under the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) via the Commercial Space Launch Act (CSLA). In a recent legal-insurance white-paper, it is noted the U.S. law authorizes NASA to indemnify commercial users to the extent private insurance is not available (51 U.S.C. §20138(b),(c)). Clyde & Co.

In short: if Starshield’s transmissions truly violate spectrum allocations or cause interference, the U.S., as launching state for SpaceX’s satellites, could face diplomatic or treaty-based liability. Further, SpaceX (and by extension Elon Musk) may face domestic regulatory or tort exposure.

Alleged Spectrum Misuse and Legal Risks

The core legal issue: Starshield satellites are reportedly transmitting in the 2025–2110 MHz range — a band reserved for Earth-to-space uplink communications. Such unauthorized use may trigger:

• Spectrum-licensing violations (via the FCC and NTIA) if U.S. domestic licenses do not cover this use.
• Potential interference claims if other satellites or ground stations experience degradation of service.
• A state-liability framework under the Liability Convention, if damage can be shown and fault established.

Because the transmissions may hinder other space actors’ telemetry, command, or data channels, claims could conceivably arise from commercial and scientific operators. But the precedent is sparse: academic commentary concludes that domestic and international legal recourse for in-orbit interference is weak, as fault is hard to define and causation hard to prove. Georgetown Law

Insurance Implications: Who Bears the Risk?

The Starshield case opens two key concern-areas: first-party property coverage and third-party liability coverage.

First-Party Property Coverage includes damage to the satellite itself — pre-launch, launch phase and in-orbit operations. Standard space-insurance markets cover launch failure, in-orbit malfunction, collision, etc. However, many policies explicitly exclude risks related to electromagnetic or radio-frequency interference (RFI). As one publication notes: “Under most space insurance policies the risk of electromagnetic and radio-frequency interference is specifically excluded.” HFW

Third-Party Liability Insurance protects the operator for claims arising from damage to other parties — e.g., other satellites, ground-stations, aircraft or terrestrial property. The Liability Convention contemplates state-level compensation, but commercial insurance may be sought for contractual indemnities.

In the Starshield scenario, if an operator alleged that interference from Starshield downlinks caused service disruption or damage, the question arises whether SpaceX (or its insurers) would cover the claim. But if interference falls under exclusions (RFI, spectrum misuse) then insurers may deny coverage. From the research: “In fact, under most space insurance policies the risk of electromagnetic and radio-frequency interference is specifically excluded.” HFW

Therefore, the insurance market may face a “grey zone” liability: a classified constellation, spectrum misuse, potential interference — but no clear precedent for coverage. That raises risk for insurers, for SpaceX, and for any downstream parties who believed they had recourse.

Potential Exposure for Elon Musk and SpaceX

What does this mean for Elon Musk and SpaceX specifically? There are several vectors of exposure:

1. Regulatory/Licensing Risk: If SpaceX did not secure authorization for these down-link transmissions in a spectrum band reserved for uplinks, the FCC and NTIA could investigate, impose fines, revoke licenses or mandate remedial action. Although the transmissions are military/defense oriented (via the NRO), domestic spectrum oversight still applies.
2. Contractual Risk: SpaceX’s contracts with the U.S. government may contain representations about regulatory compliance, interference mitigation and indemnification of the government for unknown risks. If SpaceX breached those representations, it could trigger liabilities to the U.S. government.
3. Insurance Exposure: If SpaceX holds insurance policies that exclude RFI or spectrum misuse, then claims may be uncovered or uninsured losses may arise — either in terms of claims from other operators or from the government contracting entity.
4. Reputational Risk: Even without formal liability, the discovery by amateurs (rather than by SpaceX or government disclosure) of these transmissions undercuts transparency and may trigger Congressional or oversight investigation.
5. State-Liability Risk: Because the U.S. is the launching State, if damage to other space assets could be traced to Starshield, then the U.S. government could be held internationally liable; the U.S. may seek indemnification from SpaceX or otherwise allocate loss internally.

Given the complexity of proving fault or causation, actual large-scale liability under the Liability Convention is unlikely in the near term. But the insurance gap and regulatory uncertainty mean that SpaceX and Elon Musk could face unexpected costs, investigations or contractual defaults.

Legal & Insurance Stakes

The Starshield case is not just a curiosity. It highlights how modern space operations — with classified military fleets, multiple actors and blurred spectrum domains — strain the existing legal and insurance frameworks. If a satellite operator can transmit on a band reserved for uplink without transparency, and if interference occurs, it could undermine the assumptions of insurers, scientists and commercial operators alike.

Beyond academic interest, the stakes include potential billions of dollars in replacement costs, loss of commercial service revenues, data-loss claims, and diplomatic compensation. Insurers and operators must grapple with whether existing liability models are adequate. And SpaceX, being on the frontier of both commercial and defense space, occupies a unique position of risk.

As the USA Herald continues to monitor developments, the critical questions remain unresolved: Has SpaceX secured proper spectrum authorization? Are insurers prepared for the unforeseen risks of RFI? And will regulatory and governmental oversight catch up with the speed of proliferation in space?

Sources

• “Launching Liability: How space exploration is testing legal frameworks,”Clyde & Co Insights, September 16, 2025. Clyde & Co.
• “Splash and Crash: Satellite Liability and Insurance,” Thompson & Co. publication.Thompson, Coe, Cousins & Irons, LLP
• “Satellite Interference,” HFW legal briefing.HFW