Your cart is currently empty!
YouTuber Faces Lawsuit After Opening $130 Lock Using a Soda Can
In an age where content creation has become both an art form and a legal minefield, one YouTuber’s knack for breaking things, literally, has turned from entertainment to litigation. Trevor McNally, a former U.S. Marine and creator behind a lock-picking channel boasting nearly four million subscribers, has found himself in the crosshairs of a major lock manufacturer after a viral stunt involving nothing more than a soda can.
Contents
show
The case not only captures the curious intersection between social media fame and intellectual property but also highlights how quickly internet culture can blur boundaries between curiosity and controversy. McNally’s actions, though framed as educational content, became a flashpoint for debates about corporate responsibility and creator freedom, demonstrating how modern creators can wield both influence and liability in equal measure. In a world where a video can travel faster than a press release, a single act of curiosity can ripple into an international conversation about technology, transparency, and truth.
This guy made a video bypassing a lock the company responds by suing him, saying he’s tampered with them.
— Psyware (@Psy_ware) June 2, 2025
So he orders a new one and bypasses it right out of the box. pic.twitter.com/NcuYk2SBW1
The Rise of the Lock-Picking Phenomenon
The internet has a remarkable ability to transform niche skills into full-blown spectacles. From unboxing videos to slow-motion physics experiments, the global appetite for oddly satisfying content seems boundless. McNally’s channel emerged from this digital curiosity, where mechanical mastery meets ASMR appeal. His videos, typically featuring close-up shots of him examining and disassembling various locks, drew in millions who found calm or fascination in the precise, deliberate act of lock manipulation.
What makes McNally’s appeal particularly intriguing is his ability to balance education with performance. Viewers aren’t just watching a technical demonstration; they’re witnessing a form of craftsmanship that borders on artistry. Each lock he dismantles becomes a puzzle, each success a moment of revelation. This human fascination with how things work, especially when the stakes involve security and secrecy, has made lock-picking an unexpectedly compelling digital subculture. As the hobby spread through Reddit forums and YouTube tutorials, it built an entire community of amateur engineers, tinkerers, and security testers who viewed their work not as vandalism but as applied problem-solving. McNally’s success rode the wave of that fascination, turning a quiet, methodical hobby into a viral phenomenon.
The Spark: When Marketing Meets Challenge Culture
The legal skirmish began innocuously enough. In March 2025, Florida-based Proven Industries posted a promotional video proudly showing off the durability of one of its trailer hitch locks, the $130 model 651. The company dared critics to prove otherwise, writing, “YOU GUYS KEEP SAYING YOU CAN EASILY BREAK OFF OUR LATCH PIN LOCK.” That phrasing, though likely intended as bravado, served as an invitation to a particular subset of the internet eager to test such claims.
McNally’s response embodied a growing online trend known as “challenge culture,” where creators engage in competitive or experimental demonstrations to test products and claims. This phenomenon has reshaped the relationship between brands and influencers, sometimes blurring the lines between collaboration and confrontation. For Proven Industries, what began as marketing bravado evolved into a cautionary tale about the power of viral accountability. Their public dare was effectively answered on a global stage, where even good intentions can turn into public relations disasters. When McNally sliced through the lock using a piece of a Liquid Death can, he did more than just challenge a product: he challenged an entire narrative about security, durability, and corporate transparency.
The Lawsuit: When Views Turn into Court Dates
Proven Industries reacted swiftly, accusing McNally of defamation and copyright infringement. Their claim centered on his use of a 15-second clip from their promotional video, which they argued was not protected under “fair use.” The company also alleged that McNally had intentionally manipulated the footage to make their product appear weaker than it was.
The lawsuit’s proceedings underscored the growing tension between digital creators and traditional businesses struggling to adapt to online critique. Legal experts noted that such cases are becoming more common as companies grapple with the speed and permanence of viral exposure. Once a video gains millions of views, reputational damage can occur faster than legal redress can catch up, making these disputes as much about perception as about law. When Judge Mary Scriven dismissed Proven’s claims, she made a broader statement about the nature of modern capitalism: that criticism, even sharp or inconvenient, is a necessary feature of an open market. The decision resonated beyond the courtroom, sparking conversations about creative freedom, digital commentary, and the limits of corporate sensitivity.
The Broader Question: When Tech Transparency Becomes Threatening
This incident touches on a larger tension between creators and corporations. As security technology becomes more sophisticated, so too do the enthusiasts testing it. Lock manufacturers often rely on marketing claims about durability or tamper-resistance, yet such claims become fair game for creators who see testing as transparency, not sabotage.
The situation also reveals a paradox of modern innovation: openness often strengthens trust, but only when companies are willing to embrace critique. Transparency can serve as both a mirror and a magnifying glass, showing consumers where systems succeed and where they fail. In this way, McNally’s video functioned less as a provocation and more as a public stress test: a reminder that robust design must survive not only the lab but the lens. As security consultant Deviant Ollam pointed out, public testing “keeps companies honest.” The uncomfortable truth is that many innovations improve only because they’ve been publicly challenged. In other words, McNally’s can was not just a tool for breaking metal: it was a tool for breaking complacency.
Viral Fame and the Cost of Curiosity
For McNally, the experience has become a sobering lesson in the intersection between curiosity, creativity, and consequence. His channel remains active, though newer videos often come with disclaimers emphasizing legality and safety. Still, the lawsuit sparked wider discussions about how YouTube’s algorithm rewards risk-taking and how creators walk a fine line between innovation and liability.
The public’s fascination with McNally’s case also exposes a truth about digital attention: the same curiosity that builds fame can also invite scrutiny. In a media environment that thrives on extremes, creators like McNally must navigate the tension between authenticity and algorithmic pressure. His experience highlights how creators can quickly become unwilling participants in broader debates about ethics, law, and the economics of visibility. The internet, once a playground for experimentation, now functions as a public arena where every act can become evidence, and every upload can have legal implications. McNally’s story shows how creativity can both empower and endanger in an age where attention itself is a volatile currency.
Lessons from a Lock and a Can
This story offers more than just internet drama: it’s a parable about modern transparency. When creators expose weaknesses in products, they serve a public function that, ideally, pushes industries to improve. But in a litigious landscape, that role can quickly shift from watchdog to target.
Ultimately, McNally’s story invites reflection on how society values truth-telling in the digital age. Whether through journalism, science, or YouTube experimentation, revealing flaws has always been uncomfortable yet essential to progress. His viral can-opening demonstration may fade from headlines, but the questions it raised: about fairness, free expression, and accountability: will continue to echo long after the locks are replaced. For all its strangeness, this episode reaffirms a simple lesson: transparency, even when inconvenient, remains one of humanity’s best defenses against both ignorance and arrogance.