Proven Industries v. Trevor McNally: Difference between revisions

{{Incomplete|Issue 1=Needs the rebuttal included|Issue 2=Needs more "wiki voice" commentary on each claim}}

In 2025, [[Proven Industries]], a lock company, is attempting to sue Trevor McNally,<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last= |date=May 1, 2025 |title=Case 8:25-cv-01119-MSS-LSG |url=https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.441411/gov.uscourts.flmd.441411.1.0.pdf |access-date=Jun 18, 2025 |website=Court Listener}}</ref><!-- We need to get this PDF uploaded to the wiki ASAP --> a lockpicking expert on multiple social media platforms, for various questionable damages caused by the publishing of a currently delisted video demonstrating McNally picking the lock with a makeshift shim.

==Background==

In March 2025, Proven Industries published a video on Instagram, featuring their Latch Pin Lock<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-08-31 |title=Proven Industries > Latch Pin Lock |url=https://www.provenlocks.com/products/latch-pin-lock |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250211010616/https://www.provenlocks.com/products/latch-pin-lock |archive-date=2025-02-11 |access-date=2025-08-31 |website=Proven Industries}}</ref> and a Proven Industries staff member using a number of tools on the lock and stating that there was no way for anyone to bypass the lock. In the comments of that video a user by the name of gq_videos said "Let's introduce it to the @mcnallyoffical poke" someone at Proven Industries responded to that comment by posting: "lol those guys like the cheap locks lol because they are easy and fast".<ref name=":3">{{Cite web |date=2025-08-31 |title=DEFENDANT TREVOR MCNALLY’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION |url=https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.441411/gov.uscourts.flmd.441411.14.0.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250611182806/https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.441411/gov.uscourts.flmd.441411.14.0.pdf |archive-date=2025-06-11 |access-date=2025-08-31 |website=Court Listener}}</ref>

Proven Industries posted a response video to McNally, called "Our Latch Pin Lock isn't going anywhere! Our customers know we make the BEST product on the market!" They did not name McNally, but the same staff member in their original video drank from a can of Liquid Death (the same drink McNally had used to create a lock shim).<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-08-31 |title=Our Latch Pin Lock isn't going anywhere! Our customers know we make the BEST product on the market! |url=https://www.youtube.com/shorts/16nZqtT-1sI |url-status=live |website=YouTube}}</ref>However, they changed their strategy in June and asked the judge in the legal case to issue an emergency injunction to ban Trevor McNally from making any content about Proven Industries while the court case was progressing.<ref name=":4">{{Cite web |date=2025-08-31 |title=Case 8:25-cv-01119-MSS-LSG Document 10: PLAINTIFF’S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION |url=https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70036390/10/proven-industries-inc-v-trevor-mcnally/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250603165753/https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70036390/10/proven-industries-inc-v-trevor-mcnally/ |archive-date=2025-06-03 |access-date=2025-08-31 |website=Court Listener}}</ref>

[[File:McNally Takedown.png|thumb|A screenshot taken from a taken down [https://www.youtube.com/shorts/YjzlmKz_MM8 McNally video] displaying Proven Industries' copyright claim over the video]]

==Lawsuit<!-- Extra documents to flip through: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70036390/proven-industries-inc-v-trevor-mcnally/ -->==

===Claims===

#Copyright infringement Cited multiple times inside of the legal document,<ref name=":0" /> Proven Industries attempts to claim that McNally was not following fair use doctrine for the purposes of his video. Notably due to the takedown of McNally's content, Proven instead uses screenshots to demonstrate theft, seen in sections 27 and 29 of the document.

#Defamation

===Rebuttal<!-- Read documents from: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70036390/proven-industries-inc-v-trevor-mcnally/ -->===

#Trevor McNally's lawyers claimed that Section 107 of the Copyright Act<ref>{{Cite web |date=25-08-31 |title=107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use |url=https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250311190810/https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 |archive-date=25-03-11 |access-date=25-08-31 |website=U.S. Copyright Office}}</ref> allows fair use of copyrighted material for "criticism, comment, news reporting, [or] teaching" and that the video that the take down request was made on was covered by protected use on all four factors of the section.<ref name=":3" />

#His lawyers also claimed his video was transformative and that the portions he included were there to facilitate criticism.<ref name=":3" />

#Public interest always favours supporting First Amendment rights.<ref name=":3" /><!-- Coverage in this video to eventually watch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PH1rzaMTvRE -->

===Outcome===

#Trevor McNally's lawyers objected to Proven Industries's request for an emergency injunction against Trevor McNally and the request for an emergency injunction was denied.<ref name=":4" /><ref name=":3" /><ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-09-01 |title=Case 8:25-cv-01119-MSS-LSG Document 30: ORDER |url=https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.441411/gov.uscourts.flmd.441411.30.0.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250625231154/https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.441411/gov.uscourts.flmd.441411.30.0.pdf |archive-date=2025-06-25 |access-date=2025-09-01 |website=Court Listener}}</ref>

#There were some blunders in the Proven Industries side of the legal case. These include:

In the aftermath of the case another lock company, called PacLock launched a legal case against Proven Industry, claiming that Ronald Lee, II of Proven Industries had committed perjury, due to Proven Industries making heavy use of the term "made in the USA" in their advertising material and then Ronald Lee, II admitting in the McNally case that they import large numbers of lock cylinders from outside the USA.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-09-01 |title=Pacific Lock Company v. Proven Industries, Inc. (8:25-cv-01887) |url=https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70841659/pacific-lock-company-v-proven-industries-inc/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250901010301/https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70841659/pacific-lock-company-v-proven-industries-inc/ |archive-date=2025-09-01 |access-date=2025-09-01 |website=Court Listener}}</ref>

==Consumer response==

Coverage on these legal proceedings from media outlets appear to look down upon Proven Industries' attempts to sue McNally.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Toohey |first=Ellsworth |date=Jun 3, 2025 |title=Lock manufacturer files lawsuit against social media lock picker |url=https://boingboing.net/2025/06/03/lock-manufacturer-files-lawsuit-against-social-media-lock-picker.html |access-date=Jun 18, 2025 |work=Boing Boing}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Barnes |first=Erik |date=Jun 7, 2025 |title=Lockpicking YouTuber sued by the lock company he beat; his superb response rallied support |url=https://www.good.is/youtuber-beats-lock-company |access-date=Jun 18, 2025 |work=Good}}</ref>

Trevor McNally's personal response from the legal proceedings started with a short and hastily shot short clip to disprove most claims shown in the document by picking the lock mere seconds after obtaining the lock.<ref name=":2" /> This has continued into a series of clips demonstrating other locks sold by Proven Industries being bypassed by McNally.

==References==

{{reflist}}

[[Category:Proven Industries]]

[[Category:Lawsuits]]