You don’t need beauty tutorials, crazy dances or unboxing packages. Content creator Trevor McNally has his own specialty: simply picking locks on YouTube. The activity may seem banal. However, this former sergeant major of the US Marines today has more than 7 million subscribers and more than 2 billion views.
In his videos he shows how easy it is, at least for him, to open locks simply by hitting them, forcing them or fiddling with them. The problem is that his videos do not necessarily attract specialized companies whose relative inefficiency he demonstrates, such as Proven Industries, which took the YouTuber to court. His crime? After opening a padlock in a few seconds, it was sold for $130 before the eyes of millions of Internet users, reports Ars Technica.
An “impossible to break” lock
On March 3, Proven Industries shared an announcement for a new lock on social media. In the video we can see a man violently attacking the Proven model 651 padlock, “impossible to break”, using a mallet, pliers and a crowbar. As expected, the device, sold for $130, holds up well. The company then challenges anyone to prove otherwise.
One user reported the video to Trevor McNally, who therefore gained a small reputation in the industry, which the company did not like. Proven simply responded that the type of people like Trevor McNally “only like cheap locks, lol, because they’re quick and easy” to break. And the response was immediate, and it hurt…
In a YouTube video you can see the locks expert watching the ad while drinking fruit juice. He then approaches a tested lock and opens it in a few seconds with a simple piece of tin. The video has been viewed more than 10 million times.
And that’s where things get worse. The company, visibly upset, is intensifying its actions against the YouTuber. First, a cryptic message to Trevor McNally via Instagram: “I just wanted to thank you and tell you to be prepared,” says Ron Lee, owner of Proven Industries. The YouTuber perceives the tone as threatening. The next day, Ron Lee sent a message to the YouTuber’s wife, who saw it as an attempt at intimidation.
Conspiracy, defamation and bad faith
The company then posts a response video. He accuses Trevor McNally of lying about all the prep work needed to make picking the lock too easy. “It’s heartbreaking to see how many people believe everything they see online without asking questions,” says one employee.
Far from stopping there, Proven Industries filed several takedown notices to have the video removed, claiming that use of Proven’s promotional video constituted copyright violation. For her part, the YouTuber remains calm and has fun publishing other videos where she weaves tested locks or padlocks.
In May 2025, it will be the final blow. Proven Industries sues the YouTuber. The company accuses the creator of copyright infringement, implied defamation, false advertising, unfair trade practices and even civil conspiracy. The company invokes the principle of “defamation by implication.” He assures that the video was “commercial and mocking”, posted online solely with the objective of “humiliating the complainant.” The blocking company also claims that the cameraman “wouldn’t stop until he ruined Proven’s reputation.”
So many grievances that the court considers fragile, even absurd. For the judges, the complaint has no serious legal basis. Worse yet, during the hearing, a Proven employee admitted to having managed to reproduce the defect highlighted by the YouTuber.
The court rejects the court order and dismisses the forgery charge. In July, the company finally dropped the lawsuit.
Streisand effect
But the damage has already been done. Proven Industries’ more than disproportionate reaction caused a stir on the Internet. On social networks, the company became the target of Internet users who massively distributed Trevor McNally’s video. Several YouTubers are also having fun testing the effectiveness of the device.
On the forums, the comments are ironic about the “bad closing” and the “worst marketing strategy” of the year. “Do you realize that all you have to do is show up in court with a can and one of your locks to prove your point?” says one user. “The appropriate response from a security company would be: ‘Thank you for raising this security issue. We want to work with you to resolve this vulnerability,'” adds another. Other messages veer towards harassment.
The company claims to have been “forced to disable comments on its posts and product videos due to an influx of derisive and misleading responses that fueled the false narrative McNally was feeding to Internet users.” Their customer service department has been so “influenced by fake support requests”… that they are now finding it difficult to respond to legitimate requests. A bad image that the lock specialist is not willing to get rid of.
This is what we call the Streisand effect, this media phenomenon that amplifies the echo of the information we want to combat. And there is no shortage of examples. In 2013, Beyoncé wanted to remove photos from her Superbowl concert that she considered unsightly. This attempt had the opposite effect: the photographs had spread at high speed along the platforms.
More recently, the same phenomenon was observed when two lovers were filmed without their knowledge with a “kiss cam” during a Coldplay concert. They suddenly separated, which aroused the curiosity of Internet users who managed to find their identity and discovered that it was an extramarital relationship at work.
Source: BFM TV
