New Jersey has filed a lawsuit against Sig Sauer over the P320 handgun, alleging the pistol can discharge without a trigger pull and seeking sweeping remedies that include stopping sales and compelling corrective action. The case adds to a broader wave of litigation and agency scrutiny involving the P320 platform and its military variants.
What New Jersey is asking the court to do
New Jersey’s attorney general and consumer protection officials said Oct. 16, 2025, that the state filed suit against Sig Sauer over the P320, seeking to halt sales in the state and pursue a mandatory recall, while also targeting what officials describe as deceptive safety-related marketing claims. Reuters reported the lawsuit seeks a recall of the P320 and a bar on sales, and noted Sig Sauer has faced multiple lawsuits over similar allegations that the gun can fire without the trigger being pulled—claims the company has denied. The state’s public statement frames the suit as a consumer and public-safety action, and its requested relief goes beyond damages by aiming at product availability, advertising, and corrective steps that could materially change how the P320 is sold and supported in New Jersey.
The allegations and how Sig Sauer has responded
The state alleges the P320 can discharge without a trigger pull and says the risk has led to injuries, including incidents involving law enforcement, according to New Jersey’s announcement and coverage of the filing. Reuters reported Sig Sauer has denied claims that the P320 fires on its own and has attributed incidents to operator negligence, a defense posture that has been consistent across public reporting on P320 litigation. The dispute is significant because it turns on competing explanations for reported discharges, and because a state consumer-protection lawsuit can proceed on theories that focus not only on product design but also on what companies knew, what they said publicly, and whether marketing created a misleading impression of safety or risk.
Why a state-led case changes the stakes for the market
Unlike individual injury suits that can be settled privately, a state action seeking a sales halt and mandatory recall has the potential to influence retail availability and shape downstream agency purchasing decisions, especially if the case produces injunctions, discovery of internal records, or court-ordered corrective measures. Police-oriented coverage of the New Jersey filing emphasized that the lawsuit aims at a recall and alleges unintentional discharges, underscoring that the state is positioning the issue as an ongoing consumer hazard rather than a limited set of isolated incidents. For manufacturers and dealers, state-led enforcement actions can also create a practical compliance problem, because even a single large state pursuing restrictions can force inventory changes, limit marketing language, and increase litigation exposure in other jurisdictions where plaintiffs’ lawyers cite government allegations as support for broader claims.
What gun owners and agencies should watch next
The near-term markers are procedural: whether the court grants any early relief affecting sales or advertising, whether the case expands to additional claims, and whether similar state-level actions follow, particularly in jurisdictions already scrutinizing the P320 through lawsuits or agency policy changes. For owners, the lawsuit is not a recall by itself, but it is an escalation that can move faster than product-cycle decisions, and it may influence how departments, trainers, and insurers evaluate risk even before a final ruling. For agencies, the broader context remains that the P320 platform has been under sustained legal scrutiny, and state actions like New Jersey’s can become a reference point in procurement deliberations because they frame the controversy as a consumer-protection and public-safety matter rather than a purely private dispute.
Like The Avid Outdoorsman’s content? Be sure to follow us.
Here’s more from us:
