From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
|
|
|||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
|
{{refbegin}} |
{{refbegin}} |
||
|
* {{cite web|url=https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68945218/lee-ii-v-pacific-lock-company/|title=””Lee, II v. Pacific Lock Company” (8:24-cv-01667)|work=[[Court Listener]]|via=[[Free Law Project]]}}, separate court case filed in the same district |
* {{cite web|url=https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68945218/lee-ii-v-pacific-lock-company/|title=””Lee, II v. Pacific Lock Company” (8:24-cv-01667)|work=[[Court Listener]]|via=[[Free Law Project]]}}, separate court case filed in the same district |
||
|
* {{cite magazine|url=https://www.good.is/youtuber-beats-lock-company|title=Lockpicking YouTuber sued by the lock company he beat; his superb response rallied support|work=[[GOOD Magazine]]|first=Erik|last=Barnes|date=2025-06-07|access-date=2025-11-04}} |
|||
|
* {{cite news|url=https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/10/suing-a-popular-youtuber-who-shimmed-a-130-lock-what-could-possibly-go-wrong/|title=10M people watched a YouTuber shim a lock; the lock company sued him. Bad idea.|work=[[Ars Technica]]|first=Nate|last=Anderson|date=2025-10-27|access-date=2025-11-03|department=Tech Policy}} |
* {{cite news|url=https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/10/suing-a-popular-youtuber-who-shimmed-a-130-lock-what-could-possibly-go-wrong/|title=10M people watched a YouTuber shim a lock; the lock company sued him. Bad idea.|work=[[Ars Technica]]|first=Nate|last=Anderson|date=2025-10-27|access-date=2025-11-03|department=Tech Policy}} |
||
|
* {{cite web|url=https://www.uniladtech.com/social-media/youtube/youtuber-trevor-mcnally-sued-lock-company-using-can-920271-20251028|title=YouTuber with nearly 4M subscribers sued by lock company after he breaks into lock with just a can|first=Tom|last=Chapman|date=2025-10-28|access-date=2025-11-03|work=[[UNILAD]] Tech|publisher=[[LADBible]]}} |
* {{cite web|url=https://www.uniladtech.com/social-media/youtube/youtuber-trevor-mcnally-sued-lock-company-using-can-920271-20251028|title=YouTuber with nearly 4M subscribers sued by lock company after he breaks into lock with just a can|first=Tom|last=Chapman|date=2025-10-28|access-date=2025-11-03|work=[[UNILAD]] Tech|publisher=[[LADBible]]}} |
||
Latest revision as of 05:32, 4 November 2025
Proven Industries, Inc. v. Trevor McNally (8:25-cv-01119) is an alleged copyright infringement and defamation court case around lock picking filed on May 1, 2025 before the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
The presiding judge is Mary Stenson Scriven.
Trevor McNally is a professional involved in lock picking and production of online video material.[1] Proven Industries is a US-based manufacturer of padlocks. In early 2025, Proven Industries suggested on Instagram that McNally would not attempt to defeat their brand of ‘Proven’ locks, as McNally only works with ‘easy’ locks.[2] McNally published a video, quoting the original clip of Proven Industries making a claim about their locks; alongside McNally performing a lock bypass using metal shims cut from Liquid Death-branded drink cans.
On May 1, 2025, Proven Industries sued Trevor McNally claiming copyright infringement, defamation, false advertising, unfair trade practices, tortious interference, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, and trade libel, and demanding a jury trial.[3]
On June 13, 2025, a hearing was held before Judge Mary Stenson Scriven in Tampa, Florida. During the hearing, Judge Scriven inquired if beer cans and a lock were available, so that McNally could perform a real-time demonstration, thus potentially providing an absolute defense as to whether defamation had occurred.[4][5][6]
On July 7, 2025, Proven Industries filed for voluntary dismissal, without prejudice but still requesting that case records be sealed (retrospectively) from public view.[7][6]
- ^ Barnes, Erik (2025-07-07). “Lockpicking YouTuber sued by the lock company he beat; his superb response rallied support”. Good Magazine. Retrieved 2025-07-09.
- ^ Dangerfield, Chris (2025-06-27). “McNally vs Proven Industries Court Drama Gets Crazier!”. UK Bump Keys. Retrieved 2025-07-09.
Someone on Instagram commented, “Let’s see [Trevor] McNally take a go at it.” Proven replied, paraphrased, essentially calling him out: “He wouldn’t even try, he only goes after the easy stuff.” Big mistake. Trevor McNally did try. And succeeded. Using a piece of a soda can.
- ^ Lee, Ronald J. II (2025-05-01). “1. Introduction”. In Fahey, Derek R.; Nowacki, Austin R. (eds.). Verified Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial (PDF) (Filing). Retrieved 2025-07-09 – via Court Listener.
(i) copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 501 … (ii) defamation by implication under Florida law; (iii) false advertising under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); (iv) violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (“FDUTPA”), … (v) tortious interference with business relationships; (vi) unjust enrichment; (vii) civil conspiracy; and (viii) trade libel under Florida law
- ^ Collier, David J. (2025-06-13). Motion Hearing before the Honorable Mary S. Scriven (Transcript). Tampa. Archived from the original on 2025-07-07.
The Court: Has somebody got a beer can and a shim and a lock? … the truth is an absolute defense to defamation, and whether or not Mr. McNally can open your lock by creating a [shim] out of a beer can in real-time would determine whether he’s making a false statement, setting aside all the other challenges to the claim, but that first challenge is the ultimate challenge, because if he can do that, then wouldn’t you agree that it is not defamation in the sense that it is not a false statement concerning your product?
- ^ Runkle, Ian (2025-07-03). Proven Wants To Bury This Transcript… So Let’s Review It. Runkle Of The Bailey. Retrieved 2025-07-09 – via Youtube.
- ^ a b Runkle, Ian (2025-07-09). Proven Industries Gives Up In Their Lawsuit Against Trevor McNally ‒ A Lawyer Explains. Runkle Of The Bailey. Retrieved 2025-07-09 – via Youtube.
- ^ Fahey, Derek R.; Nowacki, Austin R. (2025-07-07). Notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice (PDF) (Report). Retrieved 2025-07-09 – via Court Listener.
Notwithstanding this Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice, Plaintiff requests the Court rule on Plaintiff’s pending Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal
- “Lee, II v. Pacific Lock Company (8:24-cv-01667)”. Court Listener – via Free Law Project., separate court case filed in the same district
- Barnes, Erik (2025-06-07). “Lockpicking YouTuber sued by the lock company he beat; his superb response rallied support”. GOOD Magazine. Retrieved 2025-11-04.
- Anderson, Nate (2025-10-27). “10M people watched a YouTuber shim a lock; the lock company sued him. Bad idea”. Tech Policy. Ars Technica. Retrieved 2025-11-03.
- Chapman, Tom (2025-10-28). “YouTuber with nearly 4M subscribers sued by lock company after he breaks into lock with just a can”. UNILAD Tech. LADBible. Retrieved 2025-11-03.
- Toohey, Ellsworth (2025-10-29). “Proven Industries stops suing YouTuber for drinking juice and shimming open its lock”. Boing Boing. Retrieved 2025-11-03.
- Wilkins, Joe (2025-10-29). “Lock Company Sues Man Who Picked Its Lock, Gets Horribly Humiliated”. Future Society. Futurism. Retrieved 2025-11-03.
- Komando, Kim (2025-10-29). “This $130 lock got picked with a water can”. Retrieved 2025-11-03.
- “Youtuber otevřel neprolomitelný zámek. Následná kauza potvrdila efekt Streisandové” [Youtuber opened an unbreakable lock. Subsequent case confirmed the Streisand effect]. News Beat. Wired CZ & SK (in Czech). 2025-11-02. Retrieved 2025-11-03.
- Prada, Luis (2025-11-03). “This Lock Company Tried Suing a Guy for Picking Its Lock. It Backfired”. Vice. Retrieved 2025-11-03.
