In-N-Out sues YouTube prankster

Vil_Riker said:
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.
Click to expand...

They also took their act to places where it far more difficult to sue someone who fights back. In the United States I suspect that some of these guys are hoping that maybe the police or a victim does something in retaliation that is lawsuit worthy. But maybe it's just me, but I don't feel remotely bad when any of these clowns get injured doing this stuff.

I guess they're often called "nuisance streamers" although often they use recorded/edited video and not just live streaming. I think one woman is going to prison for defiling food at a supermarket, while another spread some sort of poison on food at a supermarket. And it's apparently at a point where YouTube and TikTok will at least demonetize video, remove them quickly, or even ban them. It's my understanding that a lot are now going to platforms that don't necessarily monetize video content, but where they're relying on donations or subscriptions. I have no idea why anyone would pay for this stuff.

There was one guy who got shot after harassing someone at a mall, and he had already been given a trespass warning. It was really appalling because his parents later defended him, saying he was doing nothing wrong by harassing people for video content.

But yeah - this guy is aching to be sued. He has no First Amendment right to enter someone else's property to be a nuisance or to act as if he's an employee. He was thinking that Raising Cane's was going to sue him a few years ago for a similar stunt. Kind of reminds me of people who have impersonated law enforcement or at least tried to exert some authority. Look up Jeremy DeWitte and Jonathan Becker.
 
benjamming said:
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.
Click to expand...
He was in front of a closed store, saying things no employee would say. Distasteful sure. Illegal - other than the trespass, I am not so sure.

And then we all sit around and wonder why big tech can cancel any opinion they like. Enjoy the ride downhill.
 
y_p_w said:
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.

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."​
Click to expand...
Sentence him to work at an in and out burger for 5 years, make it 2 years if he provides excellent service and is an outstanding employee.
 
dnewton3 said:
Free speech is not unlimited, unlike what many think. Slander and libel are not covered, for example.
When you impersonate an employee, on company property, and act in a manner which denigrates the corporate image, I greatly doubt that is covered under the 1A. Good luck trying to defend that in civil court.
Click to expand...

Sure. I've seen YouTube bits or possibly SNL where people are basically cosplaying employees of actual companies. But that's clearly parody. I saw some other law (Penal Code) on the books in California, which is false personation. Not sure if that might apply since it sounds as if it has to be someone falsely pretending to be a specific person. The federal false personation crime is only for impersonating a federal employee, although it doesn't have to be a specific person.

This was something in federal court, but I could see how this could have also been filed in state court under the California Business & Professions Code. That creates a right of private action, but doesn't make it a crime. I've seen some federal lawsuits that do mention state laws, so I'm thinking there's a means to incorporate that into a federal lawsuit.
​

14245.​

(a) A person who does any of the following shall be subject to a civil action by the owner of the registered mark, and the remedies provided in Section 14250:​
​
(1) Uses, without the consent of the registrant, any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a mark registered under this chapter in connection with the sale, distribution, offering for sale, or advertising of goods or services on or in connection with which the use is likely to cause confusion or mistake, or to deceive as to the source of origin of the goods or services.​
 
Yes, you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre. Nor say anything I want at work. Or here. Or beseech someone's good name with something that isn't true. However the 1969 parody and satire rulings in the Supreme Court was unanimous.

It doesn't have to be good parody. Its the intent that matters.
 
dnewton3 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I wonder what a mandatory tour of the "grey rock hotel," Folsom Prison would do for his attitude? Include of course , a showing of who his potential "roomies" could be if he does not learn to fly straight.
Follow that up by a nice taste of supervised "community services" similar to the old Dirty Jobs show. All tastefully recorded on video and nicely posted to his loyal :rolleyes: fans (potential copycats)? There are many ways to cut up and joke around that do not possibly affect legit businesses.
 
SammyChevelleTypeS3 said:
I wonder what a mandatory tour of the "grey rock hotel," Folsom Prison would do for his attitude? Include of course , a showing of who his potential "roomies" could be if he does not learn to fly straight.
Follow that up by a nice taste of supervised "community services" similar to the old Dirty Jobs show. All tastefully recorded on video and nicely posted to his loyal :rolleyes: fans (potential copycats)? There are many ways to cut up and joke around that do not possibly affect legit businesses.
Click to expand...

I don't think he's really looking at any kind of criminal charges that would net anything other than county jail. That being said, the Los Angeles County jails aren't exactly known for being all that accommodating.

Looks like the guy pulled all his prank videos. The one that was posted this morning (about getting sued by In-N-Out) is also gone. But in it he admitted that he knew he was pretty close to doing something wrong, and it's the kind of thing that an attorney would have told him to just shut the heck up.

I can't seem to get the full lawsuit files, but could find the first page of the initial complaint.

INO v Arnett.webp
 
y_p_w said:
There was one guy who got shot after harassing someone at a mall, and he had already been given a trespass warning. It was really appalling because his parents later defended him, saying he was doing nothing wrong by harassing people for video content.
Click to expand...
Yeah, look up Tanner Cook. He got off easy. Getting shot is good for clicks, and clicks = money.
 
If he was taking money from would-be customers while posing as an employee, that's fraud. Now we're in the criminal realm.
 
Pablo said:
What was his goal?
Make money?
Destroy In-n-out?
Mock and destroy other people?
Click to expand...
Good questions. Initially, it would seem most likely that he is just looking to increase traffic on his channel, for profit. But his video seems pretty mean spirited, so it's easy to ask if there is more to it than making money.
 
BHopkins said:
Good questions. Initially, it would seem most likely that he is just looking to increase traffic on his channel, for profit. But his video seems pretty mean spirited, so it's easy to ask if there is more to it than making money.
Click to expand...

I can't say I'm terribly interested in his content, but I don't mind seeing idiots like this being taken down a notch. I think there might have been previous instances where he was told to leave In-N-Out locations after attempting stuff like doing skateboard tricks on a counter or on a sign.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

dave1251
  • Locked
Exxon Mobil
Replies
19
Views
16K
MolaKule
Back
Top Bottom