In-N-Out sues YouTube prankster

[y_p_w]

He’s done some pretty outrageous stuff, including dressing up similar to an employee on Easter when they were closed and pretended to take orders at the drive thru. I won’t link it, but he’s posted a response on YouTube. He should probably hire a civil defense attorney.

https://www.desertsun.com/story/new...rank-viral-video-content-creator/84294696007/​

In-N-Out Burgers has sued a YouTuber known for prank videos after filming himself tricking customers at multiple locations in Southern California in April of this year.​

​

Bryan Arnett, who has around 333,000 subscribers on YouTube, regularly posts videos on the platform of him pranking people. In one video uploaded on April 25, Arnett dressed as an In-N-Out employee on Easter Sunday and stood outside a closed branch of the storied California brand. He set up cones and printed up fake versions of the In-N-Out menu and addressed customers while they ordered as if the store were open.​

​

In the lawsuit, which was filed in federal court Friday, June 20, In-N-Out said Arnett's made "lewd, derogatory, and profane remarks" which damaged the In-N-Out brand.​

​

"By dressing as one of Plaintiff’s Associates, Defendant falsely represented himself to In-N-Out’s customers and potential customers, and to the general public, as one of Plaintiff’s authorized representatives," In-N-Out said in the lawsuit "In doing so, Defendant ensured that his remarks — from the purely defamatory to the lewd, unsettling and bizarre — did not come across as mere jokes by some unaffiliated prankster but instead reflected directly and negatively on In-N-Out."​

 

[Pablo]

They should put him jail and give him some work. I won’t say he is lazy but - but sponging on someone’s territory seems half ersed

 

[MaximumMini]

When ppl stoop to harming others for personal gain, that's criminal.

 

[JimPghPA]

A business big enough to have lawyers probably feels that they had enough and it's time to swat that fly that's been bothering them.

 

[BHopkins]

They should put him jail and give him some work. I won’t say he is lazy but - but sponging on someone’s territory seems half ersed

No jail time for civil suits. But there is no question that he is making his living at the expense of others, in this case In-N-Out. I hope they are awarded not only treble damages, but also a very handsome punitive settlement. Make this guy think long and hard, before he defames anyone else.

 

[UncleDave]

A hand buzzer is a prank, a can of fake peanuts with a spring loaded snake is a prank.

These Youface guys pull all kinds of over the top stunts and then tell people it was a "prank".

I hope they make an example out of this Dbag.

 

[Pablo]

A hand buzzer is a prank, a can of fake peanuts with a spring loaded snake is a prank.

These Youface guys pull all kinds of over the top stunts and then tell people it was a "prank".

I hope they make an example out of this Dbag.

But you clean a firearm on YouTube and get banned

 

[y_p_w]

No jail time for civil suits. But there is no question that he is making his living at the expense of others, in this case In-N-Out. I hope they are awarded not only treble damages, but also a very handsome punitive settlement. Make this guy think long and hard, before he defames anyone else.

He's probably already gotten a formal trespass warning with the lawsuit. In-N-Out has supposedly banned him from all locations. His response video about being sued was recorded on the grounds of an In-N-Out. So I'm thinking criminal trespassing.

 

[BHopkins]

He's probably already gotten a formal trespass warning with the lawsuit. In-N-Out has supposedly banned him from all locations. His response video about being sued was recorded on the grounds of an In-N-Out. So I'm thinking criminal trespassing.

I did wonder about trespassing as a criminal charge. Anyone know what the maximum penalty is for trespassing in California?

 

[y_p_w]

I did wonder about trespassing as a criminal charge. Anyone know what the maximum penalty is for trespassing in California?

Unless threats are made, maybe six months to one year in county jail. Don't see the specific punishment for most subsections. I'm thinking several things, although not sure about how the warning goes. But if he's specifically interfering with the operation of the business, it doesn't require a warning.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=602.​

602. ​

Except as provided in subdivisions (u), (v), and (x), and Section 602.8, a person who willfully commits a trespass by any of the following acts is guilty of a misdemeanor:​

​

(k) Entering lands, whether unenclosed or enclosed by fence, for the purpose of injuring property or property rights or with the intention of interfering with, obstructing, or injuring a lawful business or occupation carried on by the owner of the land, the owner’s agent, or the person in lawful possession.​

******​

​

 

[daves87rs]

Well, they were closed. But, still a dumb thing to do……..

Quite distasteful from what little I saw……

 

[dnewton3]

There are two elements to this situation; civil and criminal.

As for the civil, that case has been filed. I would agree that the YT personality has wrongly defamed the business, given what facts are presented thus far. I'd like to see some significant punishment dolled out, if found guilty. He profited (YT monetization) from defaming another entity; make him pay restitution in the penalty phase of judgement. Also, if I were the company, I'd ask the judge to consider, as part of the settlement, making him post a public warning about such pranks on his YT account. Not only make him stop, but explain to others they should not follow in his footsteps.

As for the criminal, if he's been "served" notice, then yes, any future violations could be criminal in nature and warrants sought/issued.


I have ZERO respect for turds like this. Make an example of him (and those like him). If you want to prank your friends, that's on your little group. But when you prank others in a demeaning, defamatory manner, that's worthy of some serious consequences. All these "challenges" (like the one of kicking doors, or the KO one) are really distasteful and rude, and should be dealt with severely.

 

[SC Maintenance]

I have not seen the video, nor do I care to watch. I will say that stopping free speech is a very, very slippery slope. That rule was written by our founders, and is first for a reason, not to protect speech we like, but to protect that which we do not like.

Given the amount of stuff our leaders get away with, like insider trading, I consider this a pretty mild offense. What is the actual harm to that specific restaurant? Those are the damages they should receive. No more. IMHO.

 

[spasm3]

I have not seen the video, nor do I care to watch. I will say that stopping free speech is a very, very slippery slope. That rule was written by our founders, and is first for a reason, not to protect speech we like, but to protect that which we do not like.

Given the amount of stuff our leaders get away with, like insider trading, I consider this a pretty mild offense. What is the actual harm to that specific restaurant? Those are the damages they should receive. No more. IMHO.

There is a difference in free speech and what happened here.

 

[SC Maintenance]

There is a difference in free speech and what happened here.

Based solely on the Whataburger contention, I don't think so. If someone is standing in front of a clearly closed store, dressed like an idiot, making derogatory comments about a corporation, then no reasonable person would think they represent the corporation.

The bar for slander against a very public corporation is extremely high, has to be very specific, and has to have shown to cause measurable harm to the brand.

So as reprehensible as some may find it, I don't think its slander. Making derogatory fun of public people or companies is protected free speech. Its considered parody, although most may not find it funny at all. Not disagreeing with that.

In the end - how was whataburger harmed? Can they quantify a loss of business or whatever?

BTW - you can go on Tik-Tok and see lots of actual Whataburger employees cussing at their customers. What do those customers get?

 

[Hohn]

There are two elements to this situation; civil and criminal.

As for the civil, that case has been filed. I would agree that the YT personality has wrongly defamed the business, given what facts are presented thus far. I'd like to see some significant punishment dolled out, if found guilty. He profited (YT monetization) from defaming another entity; make him pay restitution in the penalty phase of judgement. Also, if I were the company, I'd ask the judge to consider, as part of the settlement, making him post a public warning about such pranks on his YT account. Not only make him stop, but explain to others they should not follow in his footsteps.

As for the criminal, if he's been "served" notice, then yes, any future violations could be criminal in nature and warrants sought/issued.


I have ZERO respect for turds like this. Make an example of him (and those like him). If you want to prank your friends, that's on your little group. But when you prank others in a demeaning, defamatory manner, that's worthy of some serious consequences. All these "challenges" (like the one of kicking doors, or the KO one) are really distasteful and rude, and should be dealt with severely.

I couldn't agree more. I hope they fine him 10 years worth of all his Youtube Revenue for all his videos made in the last few years. Make him either pay a massive fine or pay a massive lawyer bill to try to reduce that fine. Either way, he pays-- as all nefarious people should pay for their actions.

 

[Vil_Riker]

There were a couple of youtubers like that that insulted and assaulted people in Korea and Philippines and were sent to jail.

I don't know how you can't show chicken head in a cooking show but you can make hundreds of thousands by insulting people on youtube. Upside-down logic.

 

[BHopkins]

There were a couple of youtubers like that that insulted and assaulted people in Korea and Philippines and were sent to jail.

I don't know how you can't show chicken head in a cooking show but you can make hundreds of thousands by insulting people on youtube. Upside-down logic.

From what I have seen and read, I think In-N-Out deserves treble damages, and some level of punitive payment.

That said, I hope most of us appreciate the constitutional rights that we enjoy here in the USA, and recognize that it is very unfortunate that those in other parts of the world are not also privileged to have such rights.

 

[Vil_Riker]

From what I have seen and read, I think In-N-Out deserves treble damages, and some level of punitive payment.

That said, I hope most of us appreciate the constitutional rights that we enjoy here in the USA, and recognize that it is very unfortunate that those in other parts of the world are not also privileged to have such rights.

What constitutional rights are you talking about - Johnny Somali and VitalyZd were American youtubers that went to a foreign place and took advantage of their polite nature. They would have never dared to do the things they did there in the US or would be thrown in jail for a very long time.

It's funny that Philippines wanted to deport Vitaly to the US (or his birth place Russia) but both countries refused to take him.

 

[benjamming]

Based solely on the Whataburger contention, I don't think so. If someone is standing in front of a clearly closed store, dressed like an idiot, making derogatory comments about a corporation, then no reasonable person would think they represent the corporation.

The bar for slander against a very public corporation is extremely high, has to be very specific, and has to have shown to cause measurable harm to the brand.

So as reprehensible as some may find it, I don't think its slander. Making derogatory fun of public people or companies is protected free speech. Its considered parody, although most may not find it funny at all. Not disagreeing with that.

In the end - how was whataburger harmed? Can they quantify a loss of business or whatever?

BTW - you can go on Tik-Tok and see lots of actual Whataburger employees cussing at their customers. What do those customers get?

He was supposedly dressed like an In-N-Out employee. He was impersonating as an employee, allegedly. In addition he was on their property, if I have understood correctly. If true, those are substantial differentiators & do not make this a slippery slope. Does it require a little bit of wisdom to judge the case? Sure, but not a lot.