Sig Sauer P320 Class Action Lawsuit 2026, ‘Extraordinarily Dangerous’ Pistol Fires Without Trigger Pull, Washington Owners Can Join

A class action lawsuit filed November 17, 2025, in Washington federal court claims Sig Sauer sold thousands of P320 pistols that are defectively designed and extraordinarily dangerous. The complaint alleges the P320 fires easily due to design defects leading to unintended discharges — and that Sig Sauer regularly dismissed safety concerns from consumers and law enforcement while concealing the defect from the public. An identical lawsuit was granted class certification in Missouri in July 2025. No settlement exists. Washington P320 owners who purchased without a manual safety after November 2021 may qualify.

Quick Facts

• Case name: Schreiber v. Sig Sauer Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-02303
• Court: U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, Seattle
• Filed: November 17, 2025
• Plaintiff: Patrick Schreiber, Bothell, Washington
• Defendant: Sig Sauer, Inc.
• Claims: Washington Consumer Protection Act, defective design, false advertising
• Who may be affected: Washington residents who purchased a P320 without external thumb safety after November 17, 2021
• Settlement: ❌ None
• Claim form: ❌ None available
• Plaintiff attorneys: Amanda M. Steiner — Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC; Matthew L. Dameron and Clinton J. Mann — Williams Dirks Dameron LLC; Todd C. Werts — Lear Werts LLP

Current Status

The case was filed November 17, 2025 and is in early litigation. No class has been certified in Washington. No trial date is set. Sig Sauer has not answered the complaint.

A nearly identical class action in Missouri received class certification in July 2025 — a significant development that strengthens the legal foundation for the Washington case. No settlement. No claim form. No payment available at this time.

What the Lawsuit Alleges

The Three-Part Design Defect

The defect consists of three design choices that work together to make the P320 dangerous. First, the P320 becomes fully energized — functionally cocked — the moment a round is chambered. Second, the trigger pull is unusually light and short, requiring minimal force to fire. Third, Sig Sauer elected not to include any external safety features — no manual safety, no trigger safety, no grip safety.

“Because the P320 is effectively cocked when loaded, the P320 is functionally equivalent to a single action pistol with the hammer cocked back — ready to fire — without any safety features to prevent it from firing,” the complaint states.

Sig Sauer Knew — and Said Nothing

In 2017, Sig Sauer conducted an internal analysis for the U.S. Army that rated the risk of an unintentional discharge as “high” — with the potential to cause significant injuries. Despite this, the company added no external safety features and issued no public warning to consumers.

Since the P320’s launch, Sig Sauer has received over 200 complaints of unintended discharges — many resulting in serious accidents and fatalities, including those of police officers. The complaint further alleges the P320 was designed using leftover parts from a prior Sig Sauer pistol that was taken off the market for safety concerns, and that Sig Sauer’s engineering team was sidelined during the P320’s design phase.

False Advertising Claim

The lawsuit also alleges Sig Sauer violated the Washington Consumer Protection Act by marketing the P320 using imagery of military versions of the firearm — which include manual safeties — while selling civilian models without those same safety features, without disclosing the difference.

Who Could Be Included

The lawsuit seeks to represent all Washington state consumers who purchased a Sig Sauer P320 pistol without an external thumb safety between November 17, 2021, and the present.

Plaintiffs seek damages for consumers who overpaid for the defective pistols and an injunction requiring Sig Sauer to disclose or repair the defect.

You may qualify if:

• You are a Washington state resident
• You purchased a P320 without an external manual thumb safety
• Your purchase occurred after November 17, 2021

Related article: Nissan North America $1.5M Data Breach Settlement 2026, 53,000 Employees’ SSNs Exposed, File Your Claim by May 26, 2026

The 2017 “Voluntary Upgrade” Does Not Necessarily Protect You

In 2017, following early complaints, Sig Sauer offered a voluntary upgrade program. In July 2025, the Wyoming Gun Project published video demonstrating that a post-upgrade P320 could discharge without any intentional finger contact. That footage has become significant evidence in ongoing litigation. Owners who completed the 2017 upgrade are not automatically excluded from legal claims.

Broader Litigation: 100+ Lawsuits Nationwide

The Washington class action is one piece of a much larger legal wave.

As of 2025, more than 100 lawsuits have been filed nationwide alleging unintentional P320 discharges. A March 2025 federal filing included 22 new plaintiffs from 16 states — more than half law enforcement officers — whose P320s fired without trigger engagement.

On October 16, 2025, New Jersey became the first state to sue Sig Sauer directly, alleging the company knowingly sold defective handguns. The state seeks a ban on further P320 sales, a mandatory recall, and consumer fraud penalties.

Law Enforcement Bans

The Houston Police Department banned the P320 in 2025 after an officer was seriously injured in a reported accidental discharge. A federal judge ordered the Chicago Police Department to phase out the weapon after a union request. The Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission permanently banned the P320 from all law enforcement training facilities. The U.S. Air Force Global Strike Command temporarily halted use of the M18 variant following the death of an airman.

Jury Verdicts Against Sig Sauer

In June 2024, a Georgia jury awarded $2.35 million to Robert Lang after his holstered P320 discharged with no trigger contact. Sig Sauer moved to have the verdict vacated — and lost. In a separate Philadelphia case, a U.S. Army veteran was awarded $1 million in compensatory damages after his holstered P320 discharged, causing permanent leg injuries.

Sig Sauer has consistently denied the P320 is defective, insisting it cannot fire without a trigger pull and attributing incidents to user error, faulty holsters, or mishandling. No recall has been issued.

What P320 Owners Should Do Now

If your P320 fired without a trigger pull: Do not send the firearm back to Sig Sauer, clean it, or allow it to be modified before speaking with an attorney. The physical gun is your most important piece of evidence.

If you purchased a P320 in Washington and want to join the class action: Contact plaintiff’s counsel at Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC — [email protected] — for information on participating.

If you are outside Washington: Individual P320 injury lawsuits are actively being accepted in Colorado, California, Illinois, Texas, and Florida. Contact The Lyon Firm for a free, confidential case review at thelyonfirm.com. Statutes of limitations vary by state — consult an attorney promptly.

FAQs

Is there a Sig Sauer P320 settlement?

 No. No settlement exists as of March 5, 2026. The Washington class action is in early litigation. The Missouri class action — certified in July 2025 — is the furthest along, but has not settled.

Who can join the Washington class action? 

Washington state residents who purchased a P320 without an external thumb safety after November 17, 2021.

My P320 hasn’t fired on its own — do I still have a claim? 

Yes. The lawsuit seeks damages for consumers who overpaid for a defective product — not just those who experienced an unintended discharge. Economic damages for diminished value are a separate and viable claim.

Did the 2017 upgrade fix the problem?

 Not necessarily. Video evidence published in July 2025 demonstrated that a post-upgrade P320 could still discharge without intentional trigger contact.

What has Sig Sauer said? 

Sig Sauer maintains the P320 cannot fire without a trigger pull and has not issued a recall. The company attributes reported incidents to user error or faulty holsters.

Can I file an individual lawsuit even if I’m not in Washington?

 Yes. Over 100 individual lawsuits are active nationwide. Product liability and negligence claims are available in states including California, Texas, Illinois, Colorado, and Florida. Contact a product liability attorney in your state immediately — statutes of limitations apply.

For related coverage on defective products sold without adequate safety warnings, see AllAboutLawyer.com’s reporting on the Nissan Rogue Windshield Class Action 2026 — where Nissan allegedly sold vehicles with a known spontaneous glass failure defect — and the Dexcom G7 Defective Device Lawsuit — alleging a medical device manufacturer continued selling products with known alert failures while minimizing the safety risks to consumers.

By AllAboutLawyer.com Staff | Last Updated: March 5, 2026

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Legal claims and outcomes depend on specific facts and applicable law. For advice regarding a particular situation, consult a qualified attorney.

About the Author

Sarah Klein, JD, is a licensed attorney and legal content strategist with over 12 years of experience across civil, criminal, family, and regulatory law. At All About Lawyer, she covers a wide range of legal topics — from high-profile lawsuits and courtroom stories to state traffic laws and everyday legal questions — all with a focus on accuracy, clarity, and public understanding.
Her writing blends real legal insight with plain-English explanations, helping readers stay informed and legally aware.
Read more about Sarah