Sig Sauer, Inc. v. Jeffrey S. Bagnell, Esq., LLC, No.
3:22-cv-00885 (VAB), 2026 WL 867181 (D. Conn. Mar. 20, 2026)

Bagnell, a lawyer, commissioned a graphics company to create
an animation purporting to show how a P320 pistol could misfire absent a
trigger pull, known as an “uncommanded discharge.” He later posted that animation
to YouTube and published it on his firm’s website; he represents plaintiffs who
claim that they have been injured by uncommanded discharges from P320s.

The court granted a permanent injunction against Bagnell’s
advertising use, though cautioning that the issue here was not “whether the
P320 pistol can misfire or undergo uncommanded discharges, or whether that
issue should properly be the subject of litigation elsewhere, or public
commentary anywhere.”

Commercial advertising or promotion: Lawyer advertising is
commercial speech, and the animation was made for the purpose of influencing
potential clients. It was available online. Even if it also was attempting to
raise awareness about a public safety concern, “[a]dvertisers should not be
permitted to immunize false or misleading product information from government
regulation simply by including references to public issues.”

Falsity:

The P320 is a striker-fired pistol,
meaning that a pull of the trigger initiates a sequence of internal components
to move, culminating in the releasing of a compressed spring, which drives a
pin forward to impact the cartridge, causing the gun to fire. The Animation,
which is approximately five minutes long, claims to show how vibrations or
sudden movements could cause the P320 to fire absent a trigger pull.

The animation opens with a written message that the P320
contains a “mechanism of failure,” “suggesting that the following sequence is
that mechanism.” It then depicts a CT scan of a P320 before moving into fully
animated renderings of the internal components of the firearm combined with
text guidance that it is possible for the P320 to have a “defective discharge”
with “no trigger pull.”

The court found that Sig Sauer demonstrated that it would
not be possible for the P320 to have the “mechanism of failure” specifically
depicted in the video, and identified five literally false statements within
the video about specific components of the pistol.

First, the video falsely depicts malformed versions of two
P320 components, the sear and the striker foot, as having “inset surfaces,”
which could lead to an unsafe “rollover condition.” Sig Sauer’s expert witness demonstrated
that both components are flat with straight edges, making “rollover”
impossible.

The animation showed a lumpy striker foot based on a photo that
the lawyer knew depicted grease buildup. [Though knowledge isn’t required.]

Second, the video falsely depicts the slide’s ability to
move up away from the frame, allowing the striker foot to walk up off the sear
and fire without a trigger pull. This wasn’t physically possible: two steel
parts—the slide and frame rail—merged into each other in an obscured part of
the video. Yellow lines show the location of the slide channel, and a red box shows
the location of the rail: An accurate depiction would have the red box sitting
inside the two yellow lines.

Third, there were key differences between the striker’s
so-called safety notch depicted in the video and the actual P320 striker safety
notch, which is angled and undercut:

Although this portrayal allowed them to claim that the
safety lock could slip over the safety notch to result in an uncommanded
discharge, “the physical geometry of the components prevents this from
occurring.” The safety notch as depicted in the video is 50% shorter than the
actual component, adding credibility to the otherwise inaccurate claim that the
lock could slide past the notch.

Fourth, the safety lock appeared less stable in the video
than it is in reality: the video showed a bulbous, rounded appearance fitting
loosely against the striker, while the real striker safety lock has flat edges
and is tightly fitted against the striker.

The video falsely represents the dimensions of the striker
foot and striker housing by depicting “[e]xcessive space” between the two
components.

These false claims “distort the firearm’s components and
safety features to support a claim that sudden impact or vibration leads to
unintentional discharge.”

Materiality: A firearm’s safety to its bearer is plainly an
“inherent quality or characteristic” and “likely to influence purchasers,” as
YouTube comments like “Should I stop carrying my P320?” and “This is definitely
plausible and very well described … BTW I own a Sig M18 with a safety”
showed.

Defendants didn’t rebut the resulting presumption of irreparable
harm, even if Sig Sauer couldn’t show lost sales. The video was viewed as many
as 37,000 times on YouTube over the seven-month period before it was taken
down, and at least 80,000 times on another website. For injunctive relief, that
was enough. First Amendment concerns were minimal because this was a post-trial
order dealing with commercial speech, not a prior restraint.

Preventing use of the video for advertising purposes “does
nothing to prevent the Defendants from continuing to practice law, represent
plaintiffs against Sig Sauer, publicly express opinions about Sig Sauer or its
products, or using even this version of the Animation in the context of other
litigation.” The court took no position on whether the animation would be
admissible in a tort case and suggested that its decision was narrow and its
injunction should not “be construed to affect the ability of the Defendants to
use any image, take any position, or make any argument to a court in any other
litigation.”

from Blogger https://tushnet.blogspot.com/2026/03/court-enjoins-lawyer-from-using.html