Products Liability Law Daily Wrap Up, COMPLAINTS—WEAPONS AND FIREARMS—N.J. Super.: Gun maker Sig Sauer sued by New Jersey AG over its allegedly defective P320 handgun, (Oct 17, 2025)
Organizations Mentioned:Sig Sauer, Inc.
By Nicholas Kaster, J.D.
The suit seeks an order enjoining Sig Sauer from selling P320 handguns for distribution into New Jersey, as well as monetary damages.
The New Jersey Attorney General has filed a lawsuit against gun manufacturer Sig Sauer, Inc., alleging multiple violations of the state’s Firearms Industry Public Safety Law and the Consumer Fraud Act (CFA). The suit seeks to halt the sale of the P320 handgun, made by Sig Sauer. According to the complaint, the gun has a propensity to fire unintentionally and has led to the death and injury of New Jersey law enforcement officers. The Attorney General is bringing the claim under the Statewide Affirmative Firearms Enforcement Office (SAFE). The Acting Director of the New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs is joining the suit. The Attorney General and the Acting Director are bringing the suit pursuant to their authority under the CFA (Platkin v. Sig Sauer, Inc., No. ESX-C-000217-25 (N.J. Super. Oct. 16, 2025)).
Allegations against P320. First released in 2014, the Sig Sauer P320 is a striker-fired handgun—that is, it is designed so that whenever the gun is loaded with a chambered round, the spring is fully compressed and the striker is in a position to release. The suit alleges that the gun depends on “weak internal safeties” that make it easier to fire, intentionally or not. According to the suit, the features of the gun contrast with striker-fired handguns made by other manufacturers, which either do not use fully pre-cocked strikers or use external safeties and internal restraints that are precisely designed and manufactured to prevent the striker from impacting the round without a deliberate trigger pull.
The suit alleges that from the start, Sig Sauer advertised the P320 as having an enhanced level of safety. However, according to the Attorney General, by 2017 the company was on notice that the P320 “can and does fire without intentional trigger pulls.” Moreover, the suit alleges that law enforcement and firearms professionals began to report more and more incidents in which P320s fired unintentionally. The suit highlights cases where New Jersey police officers were harmed by the unintentional discharge of the P320.
According to the complaint, Sig Sauer has made minor changes and continues to minimize the unintended discharge problem. A “voluntary upgrade” adopted by the company failed to remedy the harm to law enforcement and the public, the suit maintains.
In addition, the suit maintains, law enforcement agencies have recognized its danger and discontinued its use. Moreover, the suit alleges that the company has continued to mislead the public about the dangers of the P320 resulting from unintended discharge and has not warned the public of the gun’s risks.
Causes of action. Multiple causes of action are alleged. The suit alleges that Sig Sauer violated New Jersey’s Firearms Industry Public Safety Law, N.J.S.A. 2C:58-35, by manufacturing, distributing, and selling unsafe P320s. Under Section 58-35(a)(1), a gun industry member “shall not, by conduct unreasonable under all the circumstances …, knowingly or recklessly create, maintain, or contribute to a public nuisance in this State through the sale, manufacturing, distribution, importing, or marketing of gun-related product.”
The suit also alleges violation of New Jersey’s Product Liability Act, claiming that the gun has a product design or manufacturing defect due to its “propensity to unintentionally fire.” The suit also alleges failure to warn, claiming that Sig Sauer’s failure to warn users has “proximately caused harm to the State and its residents.” According to the complaint, it was foreseeable to Sig Sauer that New Jersey and its residents would be harmed by Sig Sauer’s failure to warn users.
Finally, the suit alleges multiple violations of New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act. According to the complaint, in connection with the sale and advertisement of the P320 handguns, Sig Sauer has engaged in unconscionable commercial practices and multiple acts of deception.
Injunctive relief sought. The suit seeks an order enjoining Sig Sauer from selling P320 handguns for distribution into New Jersey. In addition, the suit seeks an order enjoining Sig Sauer from marketing defective P320 handguns to New Jerseyans: (1) as safe from unintended discharge, (2) as not requiring additional external safeties, or (3) as only firing when the user deliberately pulls the trigger. The suit also seeks to permanently enjoin Sig Sauer from engaging in or continuing to engage in violations of the CFA. An award of abatement is also sought, including an order for the company to conduct a mandatory recall of P320 handguns in New Jersey.
Monetary and punitive damages. The suit seeks monetary and punitive damages to be determined at trial, including interest. The suit also seeks restitution, including disgorgement of profits, civil penalties, and costs and expenses, including attorney fees.
The case is No. ESX-C-000217-25.
Attorneys: David Leit, Office of the Attorney General, for Matthew J. Platkin and Elizabeth M. Harris.
Companies: Sig Sauer, Inc.
MainStory: TopStory ComplaintNewsStory WeaponsFirearmsNews DesignManufacturingNews WarningsNews NewJerseyNews GCNNews