McNally vs Proven Industries Court Drama Gets Crazier!

Proven Industries vs Trevor McNally: From Defamation to Sealing - What Are They Really Trying to Hide?

(Be sure to read the first blog in this series first, which can be found HERE)

Yesterday, I wrote a BLOG where I explored the lawsuit Proven Industries filed against lock-testing YouTuber Trevor McNally. (AKA McNallyOfficial) I concluded, then, that it looked ill-conceived. 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 so-called 'premium locks' - pricey, heavy-duty 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.

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 click-through 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 fallout is inevitable. Customers will talk. Sales will slump. And yes, social media will amplify it.

But again - this was all in their original complaint. The financial harm, the customer dissatisfaction, and the damage to goodwill it was already part of their public narrative. What’s changed is that the court has denied their emergency injunction. And sealing that denial looks, frankly, like an attempt to keep an unfavourable ruling under wraps.

The Real Story: Silencing Criticism?

What Proven Industries may really want sealed is the court's reasoning. Legal observers are especially interested in the court’s fair use analysis, because that decision could set a precedent around commentary and product testing on YouTube.

It appears that they’re attempting to suppress coverage of their loss under the guise of protecting sensitive data. However, the reality is that once something is filed publicly, it becomes part of the public domain. Trying to seal it retroactively doesn’t protect anyone; it just draws more attention to what you’re trying to hide.

My Role in All This

I’m not a party in this case—but I did publish a BLOG on the topic yesterday. And now, because of this sealing motion, I might need to file an intervention to oppose it if I want this content to remain visible. I'm no lawyer, so we'll see.

Proven Industries haven't approached me, and I'm not cited in the court documents. But media has a right to access court proceedings, especially in matters of public interest. And the public has a right to know when expensive security products don’t perform as advertised.

Lessons for Proven Industries - and Anyone Reading

1. Don’t provoke skilled critics online.
   If you call someone out, don’t be shocked when they respond and expose flaws in your product.

2. Don’t try to erase the internet.
   Once something’s out there, it’s out there. Filing after the fact makes you look shady.

3. Protect private info before it goes public.
   If you really want to keep names or business strategies confidential, use the proper legal mechanisms from the start.

4. Litigation is not a marketing plan.
   You might win a legal point, but lose the trust of your customers.

 

Final Thoughts

I have every sympathy for those receiving abuse or threats. But that doesn’t mean companies get to seal unflattering rulings. Transparency matters. And so does accountability.

Thanks for reading. As always, I’ll keep you updated as this story unfolds. 

Happy Picking

Chris Dangerfield