Louisville jury awards $104.2 million after online ghost gun company fails to appear at trial

A Louisville jury ordered an online ghost gun company to pay $104.2 million in damages after the company failed to appear at its own trial, according to Louisville Public Media. The verdict came in a Kentucky case brought by a mother, the report said, after the defendant did not show up during the proceedings.

The report characterized the award as the largest of its kind in U.S. history. Louisville Public Media said the jury’s decision followed the company’s absence from the trial process, leaving the case to proceed without the defendant’s participation.

Kentucky courts can issue damages awards and other orders when a defendant does not participate as required in civil litigation, including when a party fails to appear. In the matter reported by LPM, the company’s nonappearance did not stop the jury from reaching a damages determination, and the jury’s award was reported as $104 million plus $200,000.

The case highlights the role of state civil lawsuits in seeking financial remedies related to alleged violations tied to the distribution of firearms components. Ghost gun claims typically involve arguments that buyers were able to obtain firearm parts without completing background checks or other legal requirements, and that sellers may bear liability when plaintiffs can show harm.

For the plaintiff, the practical effect is immediate: the reported damages award sets the amount the company will be expected to pay, subject to the outcome of any post-trial motions and any further litigation over liability, enforcement, or damages calculations.

For the broader public, the verdict is also a reminder of how quickly civil cases can move when one side does not engage. Failure to appear can lead to a final judgment that plaintiffs can attempt to collect through the courts, while defendants may later pursue appeals or other challenges if procedural rules permit.

It remains unclear from the available reporting what specific model of the ordered components or the exact allegations in the complaint were, or whether the company has any announced plan to challenge the verdict. Additional court records would be needed to confirm the underlying factual record and the current status of any motions after the jury’s award.