Policy

“Opening locks” might not sound like scintillating social media content, but Trevor McNally has turned lock-busting into online gold. A former US Marine Staff Sergeant, McNally today has more than 7 million followers and has amassed more than 2 billion views just by showing how easy it is to open many common locks by slapping, picking, or shimming them.

This does not always endear him to the companies that make the locks.

On March 3, 2025, a Florida lock company called Proven Industries released a social media promo video just begging for the McNally treatment. The video was called, somewhat improbably, “YOU GUYS KEEP SAYING YOU CAN EASILY BREAK OFF OUR LATCH PIN LOCK.” In it, an enthusiastic man in a ball cap says he will “prove a lot of you haters wrong.” He then goes hard at Proven’s $130 model 651 trailer hitch lock with a sledgehammer, bolt cutters, and a crowbar.

Naturally, the lock hangs tough.

An Instagram user brought the lock to McNally’s attention by commenting, “Let’s introduce it to the @mcnallyofficial poke.” Someone from Proven responded, saying that McNally only likes “the cheap locks lol because they are easy and fast.” Proven locks were said to be made of sterner stuff.

But on April 3, McNally posted a saucy little video to social media platforms. In it, he watches the Proven promo video while swinging his legs and drinking a Juicy Juice. He then hops down from his seat, goes over to a Proven trailer hitch lock, and opens it in a matter of seconds using nothing but a shim cut from a can of Liquid Death. He says nothing during the entire video, which has been viewed nearly 10 million times on YouTube alone.

Despite practically begging people to attempt this, Proven Industries owner Ron Lee contacted McNally on Instagram. “Just wanted to say thanks and be prepared!” he wrote. McNally took this as a threat.

(Oddly enough, Proven’s own homepage features a video in which the company trashes competing locks and shows just how easy it is to defeat them. And its news pages contain articles and videos on “The Hidden Flaws of Master Locks” and other brands. Why it got so upset about McNally’s video is unclear.)

The next day, Lee texted McNally’s wife. The message itself was apparently Lee’s attempt to de-escalate things; he says he thought the number belonged to McNally, and the message itself was unobjectionable. But after the “be prepared!” notice of the day before, and given the fact that Lee already knew how to contact him on Instagram, McNally saw the text as a way “to intimidate me and my family.” That feeling was cemented when McNally found out that Lee was a triple felon—and that in one case, Lee had hired someone “to throw a brick through the window of his ex-wife.”

Concerned about losing business, Lee kept trying to shut McNally down. Proven posted a “response video” on April 6 and engaged with numerous social media commenters, telling them that things were “going to get really personal” for McNally. Proven employees alleged publicly that McNally was deceiving people about all the prep work he had done to make a “perfectly cut out” shim. Without extensive experience, long prep work, and precise measurements, it was said, Proven’s locks were in little danger of being opened by rogue actors trying to steal your RV.

“Sucks to see how many people take everything they see online for face value,” one Proven employee wrote. “Sounds like a bunch of liberals lol.”

Proven also had its lawyers file “multiple” DMCA takedown notices against the McNally video, claiming that its use of Proven’s promo video was copyright infringement.

McNally didn’t bow to the pressure, though, instead uploading several more videos showing him opening Proven locks. In one of them, he takes aim at Proven’s claims about his prep work by retrieving a new lock from an Amazon delivery kiosk, taking it outside—and popping it in seconds using a shim he cuts right on camera, with no measurements, from an aluminum can.

On May 1, Proven filed a federal lawsuit against McNally in the Middle District of Florida, charging him with a huge array of offenses: (1) copyright infringement, (2) defamation by implication, (3) false advertising, (4) violating the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, (5) tortious interference with business relationships, (6) unjust enrichment, (7) civil conspiracy, and (8) trade libel. Remarkably, the claims stemmed from a video that all sides admit was accurate and in which McNally himself said nothing.

Don’t mock me, bro

How can you defame someone without even speaking? Proven claimed “defamation by implication,” arguing that the whole setup of McNally’s videos was unfair to the company and its product. McNally does not show his prep work, which (Proven argued) conveys to the public the false idea that Proven’s locks are easy to bypass. While the shimming does work, Proven argued that it would be difficult for an untrained user to perform.

But what Proven really, really didn’t like was being mocked. McNally’s decision to drink—and shake!—a juice box on video comes up in court papers a mind-boggling number of times. Here’s a sample:

McNally appears swinging his legs and sipping from an apple juice box, conveying to the purchasing public that bypassing Plaintiff’s lock is simple, trivial, and even comical…

…showing McNally drinking from, and shaking, a juice box, all while swinging his legs, and displaying the Proven Video on a mobile device…

The tone, posture, and use of the juice box prop and childish leg swinging that McNally orchestrated in the McNally Video was intentional to diminish the perceived seriousness of Proven Industries…

The use of juvenile imagery, such as sipping from a juice box while casually applying the shim, reinforces the misleading impression that the lock is inherently insecure and marketed deceptively…

The video then abruptly shifts to Defendant in a childlike persona, sipping from a juice box and casually applying a shim to the lock…

In the end, Proven argued that the McNally video was “for commercial entertainment and mockery,” produced for the purpose of “humiliating Plaintiff.” McNally, it was said, “will not stop until he destroys Proven’s reputation.” Justice was needed. Expensive, litigious justice.

But the proverbially level-headed horde of Internet users does not always love it when companies file thermonuclear lawsuits against critics. Sometimes, in fact, the level-headed horde disregards everything taught by that fount of judicial knowledge, The People’s Court, and they take the law into their own hands.

Proven was soon the target of McNally fans. The company says it was “forced to disable comments on posts and product videos due to an influx of mocking and misleading replies furthering the false narrative that McNally conveyed to the viewers.” The company’s customer service department received such an “influx of bogus customer service tickets… that it is experiencing difficulty responding to legitimate tickets.”

Someone posted Lee’s personal phone number to the comment section of a McNally video, which soon led to “a continuous stream of harassing phone calls and text messages from unknown numbers at all hours of the day and night,” which included “profanity, threats, and racially charged language.”

Lest this seem like mere high spirits and hijinks, Lee’s partner and his mother both “received harassing messages through Facebook Messenger,” while other messages targeted Lee’s son, saying things like “I would kill your f—ing n—– child” and calling him a “racemixing pussy.”

This is clearly terrible behavior; it also has no obvious connection to McNally, who did not direct or condone the harassment. As for Lee’s phone number, McNally said that he had nothing to do with posting it and wrote that “it is my understanding that the phone number at issue is publicly available on the Better Business Bureau website and can be obtained through a simple Google search.”

And this, with both sides palpably angry at each other, is how things stood on June 13 at 9: 09 am, when the case got a hearing in front of the Honorable Mary Scriven, an extremely feisty federal judge in Tampa. Proven had demanded a preliminary injunction that would stop McNally from sharing his videos while the case progressed, but Proven had issues right from the opening gavel:

LAWYER 1: Austin Nowacki on behalf of Proven industries.

THE COURT: I’m sorry. What is your name?

LAWYER 1: Austin Nowacki.

THE COURT: I thought you said Austin No Idea.

LAWYER 2: That’s Austin Nowacki.

THE COURT: All right.

When Proven’s lead lawyer introduced a colleague who would lead that morning’s arguments, the judge snapped, “Okay. Then you have a seat and let her speak.”

Things went on this way for some time, as the judge wondered, “Did the plaintiff bring a lock and a beer can?” (The plaintiff did not.) She appeared to be quite disappointed when it was clear there would be no live shimming demonstration in the courtroom.

Then it was on to the actual arguments. Proven argued that the 15 seconds of its 90-second promo video used by McNally were not fair use, that McNally had defamed the company by implication, and that shimming its locks was actually quite difficult. Under questioning, however, one of Proven’s employees admitted that he had been able to duplicate McNally’s technique, leading to the question from McNally’s lawyer: “When you did it yourself, did it occur to you for one moment that maybe the best thing to do, instead of file a lawsuit, was to fix [the lock]?”

At the end of several hours of wrangling, the judge stepped in, saying that she “declines to grant the preliminary injunction motion.” For her to do so, Proven would have to show that it was likely to win at trial, among other things; it had not.

As for the big copyright infringement claim, of which Proven had made so much hay, the judge reached a pretty obvious finding: You’re allowed to quote snippets of copyrighted videos in order to critique them.

“The purpose and character of the use to which Mr. McNally put the alleged infringed work is transformative, artistic, and a critique,” said the judge. “He is in his own way challenging and critiquing Proven’s video by the use of his own video.”

As for the amount used, it was “substantial enough but no more than is necessary to make the point that he is trying to critique Proven’s video, and I think that’s fair game and a nominative fair use circumstance.”

While Proven might convince her otherwise after a full trial, “the copyright claim fails as a basis for a demand for preliminary injunctive relief.”

As for “tortious interference” and “defamation by implication,” the judge was similarly unimpressed.

“The fact that you might have a repeat customer who is dissuaded to buy your product due to a criticism of the product is not the type of business relationship the tortious interference with business relationship concept is intended to apply,” she said.

In the end, the judge said she would see the case through to its end, if that was really what everyone wanted, but “I will pray that you all come to a resolution of the case that doesn’t require all of this. This is a capitalist market and people say what they say. As long as it’s not false, they say what they say.”

She gave Proven until July 7 to amend its complaint if it wished.

On July 7, the company dismissed the lawsuit against McNally instead.

Proven also made a highly unusual request: Would the judge please seal almost the entire court record—including the request to seal?

Court records are presumptively public, but Proven complained about a “pattern of intimidation and harassment by individuals influenced by Defendant McNally’s content.” According to the company, a key witness had already backed out of the case, saying, “Is there a way to leave my name and my companies name out of this due to concerns of potential BLOW BACK from McNally or others like him?” Another witness, who did submit a declaration, wondered, “Is this going to be public? My concern is that there may be some backlash from the other side towards my company.”

McNally’s lawyer laid into this seal request, pointing out that the company had shown no concern over these issues until it lost its bid for a preliminary injunction. Indeed, “Proven boasted to its social media followers about how it sued McNally and about how confident it was that it would prevail. Proven even encouraged people to search for the lawsuit.” Now, however, the company “suddenly discover[ed] a need for secrecy.”

The judge has not yet ruled on the request to seal.

Another way

The strange thing about the whole situation is that Proven actually knew how to respond constructively to the first McNally video. Its own response video opened with a bit of humor (the presenter drinks a can of Liquid Death), acknowledged the issue (“we’ve had a little bit of controversy in the last couple days”), and made clear that Proven could handle criticism (“we aren’t afraid of a little bit of feedback”).

The video went on to show how their locks work and provided some context on shimming attacks and their likelihood of real-world use. It ended by showing how users concerned about shimming attacks could choose more expensive but more secure lock cores that should resist the technique.

Quick, professional, non-defensive—a great way to handle controversy.

But it was all blown apart by the company’s angry social media statements, which were unprofessional and defensive, and the litigation, which was spectacularly ill-conceived as a matter of both law and policy. In the end, the case became a classic example of the Streisand Effect, in which the attempt to censor information can instead call attention to it.

Judging from the number of times the lawsuit talks about 1) ridicule and 2) harassment, it seems like the case quickly became a personal one for Proven’s owner and employees, who felt either mocked or threatened. That’s understandable, but being mocked is not illegal and should never have led to a lawsuit or a copyright claim. As for online harassment, it remains a serious and unresolved issue, but launching a personal vendetta—and on pretty flimsy legal grounds—against McNally himself was patently unwise. (Doubly so given that McNally had a huge following and had already responded to DMCA takedowns by creating further videos on the subject; this wasn’t someone who would simply be intimidated by a lawsuit.)

In the end, Proven’s lawsuit likely cost the company serious time and cash—and generated little but bad publicity.