Notice Board
McNally vs Proven Industries Court Drama Gets Crazier
Proven Industries vs Trevor McNally:
From Defamation to Sealing- What Are They Really Trying to Hide?
» LAST MONTH IN THE LOCKSMITH Journal( and on my own blog), I explored the lawsuit Proven Industries filed against lock-testing YouTuber Trevor McNally, AKA McNallyOfficial. I concluded, then, that it looked illconceived. But today, it’ s looking less like a blunder and more like a cover-up. I could be wrong, but the signs are there. Let’ s walk through what’ s happening and why it matters.
The Background: A Call-Out Gone Wrong
Proven Industries manufactures socalled‘ premium locks’- pricey, heavyduty gear meant to resist break-ins with brute force. Think crowbars, hammers, sledge-type attacks. They published a promotional video boasting about the security of their locks.
Someone on Instagram commented,“ Let’ s see 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.
That’ s when Proven shifted gears- straight into damage control mode.
‘ Proven Industries filed a lawsuit against McNally, accusing him of defamation and trade libel. Their aim? Stop the videos, stop the embarrassment, and stop the bleeding’
The Lawsuit: Defamation and the Streisand Effect
Rather than accept the outcome and reassess their design, Proven Industries filed a lawsuit against McNally, accusing him of defamation and trade libel. Their aim? Stop the videos, stop the embarrassment, and stop the bleeding. The problem is, the videos clearly show the lock being defeated, something their marketing campaign couldn’ t withstand.
Trevor responded with more videos. Each one further dismantled their claims. And Proven’ s lawsuit began to look more like a PR nightmare than a legal remedy.
Now It Gets Weirder: The Motion to‘ Seal’
This week, Proven filed a motion to seal key documents in the case under Local Rule 1.11- a legal mechanism that allows parties to seal documents that contain sensitive, confidential, or potentially harmful information.
Here’ s the problem: the documents they’ re trying to seal are already public. CourtListener, via the Free Law Project, has already made them available. Media outlets and case-watchers like me have already downloaded and reviewed them.
You can’ t un-ring the bell. And wow, is it ringing!
What Are They Trying to Hide?
The motion seeks to seal:
• The emergency motion for a preliminary injunction
• Supporting exhibits and declarations
• The court’ s order denying that injunction
• The hearing transcript
• Lists of witnesses, exhibits, and internal communications
They claim these documents include proprietary business strategies, employee identities, and sensitive personal information. In particular, they cite a“ pattern of harassment and intimidation” allegedly carried out by McNally’ s followers, including doxing, death threats, and racial abuse.
Let’ s be clear: harassment is inexcusable. Nobody, executives, employees, or families, should be targeted or threatened. Period. I’ ve had it myself. It’ s not nice.
But here’ s the kicker: Proven named people in these documents themselves. They identified employees, partners, and even private individuals, then turned around and asked the court to protect that information. That’ s not just bad planning, it undermines the entire justification for the seal.
If the documents were so sensitive, why weren’ t they filed under seal before being published?
Damage Control in Real Time
Much of the material Proven Industries now wants hidden outlines exactly how the viral videos affected them:
• Increased product returns
• Negative Amazon reviews and customer feedback
• Decreased ad conversion and clickthrough rates
• Lost sales and damaged brand reputation
None of this is unexpected. If you market a lock as unbreakable, and someone breaks it on camera, the
16
AUGUST 2025
locksmithjournal. co. uk Issue Takeover