DCS sues Small YouTuber for accurate product review showing battery issues & misleading warranty
From Consumer Rights Wiki
A recent defamation lawsuit by Australian battery manufacturer Deep Cycle Systems (DCS) against AllOffroad 4×4 Adventures TV created debate across online forums & within the independent review community. The case centers on an honest, in‐depth review by the YouTube channel that highlighted concerning battery degradation, misleading warranty practices, & poor performance in government testing. The lawsuit was ultimately dismissed; but the reviewer privated his videos as the case was in progress, which demonstrates how corporate defamation claims can be used as a tool to suppress negative product reviews on YouTube.
Founded in Australia and known for its range of lithium batteries, DCS has built its reputation on claims of advanced battery technology and robust performance. The company claims that its products are engineered for longevity and are backed by warranty terms that guarantee quality. However, DCS’s legal action & aggressive responses to negative reviews suggest that the company is willing to use litigation as a tool to protect its image & suppress unfavorable feedback.[1]
Stefan Fischer, the creator behind AllOffroad 4×4 Adventures TV, has long been a trusted voice among off-road enthusiasts. With a modest but dedicated following, Fischer performed several reviews of DCS batteries after receiving them for testing. His videos documented the performance & issues with capacity fade, as well as discrepancies in the product warranty. Fischer’s review was straightforward and based on extensive, real-world testing—qualities that earned him support from his audience and notable figures in the independent review community.[2]
Fischer’s videos, which form the crux of the lawsuit, detail several key points:
Battery Degradation: Despite an initial satisfactory performance, the batteries exhibited a rate of capacity loss that many felt exceeded what DCS’s warranty would promise. Independent tests showed that, in some cases, the batteries were underperforming in critical applications such as off-road and camping scenarios.
Screenshot of DCS warranty policy website from March 2023, which says battery will be replaced within warranty period if it falls below 80% capacity in warranty period.[3]Screenshot of DCS warranty policy website from November 2023, which says battery will be replaced within warranty period if it falls below 70% capacity in warranty period if it is used a certain way. This text was NOT included in prior warranty policies. However, the page still says "Policy last updated 14th JUNE 2021." , which misleads customers into believing their warranty at the point of sale claimed 70% was considered defective even if it was 80% at the time of the customer's purchase.[4]Misleading Warranty Terms: Fischer pointed out discrepancies between the warranty claims posted on DCS’s website and the apparent changes in policy. While the company falsely stated that their policy had not changed since 14 June 2021, archived versions of their website from March 2023 and November 2023 reveal otherwise.
- The March 2023 policy states: "The battery will be determined to be defective if it fails to deliver less than 80% of its rated capacity during the warranty period."[5]
- The November 2023 policy had changed: "The battery will be determined to be defective if it fails to deliver less than 80% of its rated capacity during the warranty period for normal installations. The battery will be determined to be defective if it fails to deliver less than 70% of its rated capacity during the warranty period when installed inside engine bays or engine compartments."[6]
- This change effectively weakened consumer protections while falsely maintaining that the warranty terms had remained unchanged.
DCS battery capacity vs. other brands: DCS ranks worst by large margin, reiterating Stefan's skepticism about the quality of the products DCS provides with regards to longevity & capacity.[7]Australian Government Testing: Independent government testing conducted by Australia’s Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) found that DCS’s battery performed worse than every other battery tested by a large margin.[8] The Phase 3 Capacity Test Results (Section 6.3, page 28) revealed that this battery performed worse than every battery in the test, validating Fischer’s concerns about the battery’s real-world reliability.
Overall Product Suitability: Beyond the numbers, Fischer’s honest account questioned whether the batteries were truly fit for the demanding conditions they were marketed for—raising concerns that if these issues went unchallenged, consumers might face unexpected failures & financial loss.
In May of 2024, DCS filed a defamation lawsuit in the District Court of Queensland. The lawsuit alleged that Fischer’s reviews were not only defamatory but also malicious, claiming that the negative publicity had cost the company significant losses. DCS sought compensatory damages, interest, and legal costs, although the precise sum remained undisclosed.[9]
The legal threat was concerning to YouTube content creators & reviewers. Many feared that if a company could successfully sue a small, independent reviewer for presenting genuine, factual criticism, it would have a chilling effect on honest product reviews. Industry observers and fellow creators—including prominent right-to-repair advocate Louis Rossmann—criticized DCS’s approach. Rossmann’s own commentary on the issue drew sharp responses, with him labeling DCS’s tactics as "scumbags" and emphasizing that "it’s not defamation if it’s true."
On March 11, 2025, the District Court of Queensland dismissed DCS's defamation claim against Stefan Fischer.[10] The court ruled that DCS is not an "excluded corporation" under Queensland law, meaning they lack standing to sue for defamation.[11]
The court found that:
- DCS had more than 10 employees and was an associated entity of another corporation, making them ineligible to bring a defamation lawsuit.
- DCS's sole director, Marek Tomolowicz, was found to have made multiple misleading statements regarding company operations and finances.
- There was financial intermingling between DCS and another company, Energy Tech Electronics. The court determined that both companies operated under the same financial structure, sharing a business credit card, assets, and cross-company loans.
- Tomolowicz admitted to using fake employee names in email communications, including an AI-generated employee named "Michelle" to correspond with customers.
- The court deemed Tomolowicz’s testimony unreliable, citing instances where he was caught making false statements under oath, including prior claims that DCS had a factory stake in China.
- Payroll records, financial documents, and employee arrangements suggested that DCS had more than five full-time employees, with additional staff likely being compensated through research and development (R&D) expenditures.
- The court also noted loans and shared financial resources between DCS and Energy Tech, further solidifying their classification as associated entities under corporate law.
As a result of the lawsuit being dismissed, Fischer must now file separate court proceedings to recover legal costs. Both parties have been ordered to submit written submissions on the matter, with deadlines set between March and April 2025.[12]
The backlash against DCS was swift and widespread. Across Reddit threads, forums, and social media platforms, supporters of independent reviewers rallied behind Fischer. Many contributed to fundraising campaigns aimed at offsetting the legal costs he faced, and several influential voices argued that such lawsuits could ultimately silence free and honest feedback, replacing it with sanitized, sponsor-approved content.
Critics argued that this legal action was less about protecting the company’s reputation and more about stifling consumer information. They warned that if manufacturers were allowed to target independent reviewers with expensive litigation, the entire ecosystem of user-generated product insights could be compromised—leaving consumers with fewer reliable options when making purchase decisions.
This case serves as a reminder of the vulnerability small content creators find themselves in when reviewing products with scarce resources. With most independent reviewers operating on tight budgets and limited legal resources, the mere threat of litigation can force them into self-censorship or compel them to settle out of court—even when their findings are substantiated by facts and supported by the community.
When faced with unfavorable reviews, some companies may choose to resort to legal intimidation rather than addressing the underlying product issues. Such actions not only undermine consumer trust but also weaken the overall integrity of product reviews.
