The burger joint claims that whereas “impersonating” an worker, the favored YouTuber made a lot of “racially insensitive, weird, and lewd remarks” — together with asking a buyer in the event that they’d sleep together with his spouse whereas he watched.
One YouTuber’s video about In-N-Out has landed him in double double bother.
The burger joint filed a lawsuit final week in opposition to Bryan Arnett, identified for his viral pranks on YouTube. Within the video, which has since been pulled down, he reportedly wearing In-N-Out branded clothes whereas interacting with potential clients — making what In-N-Out calls “lewd, derogatory, and profane remarks” damaging their fame.
They’re suing for trademark infringement, trespassing and enterprise defamation, amongst different alleged offenses.
The lawsuit accuses Arnett of “repeatedly impersonating an In-N-Out Affiliate to be able to abuse In-N-Out clients’ belief, filming these clients with out their consent, after which willfully disseminating these movies on-line, replete with false and deceptive statements impugning In-N-Out’s fame and meals high quality.”
Per the docs, In-N-Out requested Arnett pull down the movies; when he did not, they filed swimsuit. After the lawsuit was filed, the video — and one other through which he allegedly referenced the authorized motion — was set to non-public.
The incident in query, per In-N-Out occurred on Easter Sunday 2025, with the burger chain claiming Arnett visited “a number of” areas wearing “a faux uniform” with their brand on it. They accuse him of approaching clients “as he made lewd, derogatory, and profane remarks, comparable to stating that In-N-Out had cockroaches and condoms in its meals, and that In-N-Out Associates put their toes in lettuce served to clients; (2) providing meals merchandise ‘doggy model’; and (3) asking a possible buyer whether or not the shopper would sleep together with his spouse and permit Arnett to look at.”
The “doggy model” comment is a sexual spin on the chain’s “animal model” choice on their meals, through which they cowl it with their particular sauce, pickles and grilled onions.
SYFY
Lady Recognized with PTSD After Work ‘Incident’ Involving Chucky Doll: Lawsuit
View Story
The chain claims that by posting the video, Arnett was “falsely telling tons of of hundreds of viewers that Plaintiff’s eating places are unsanitary and that Plaintiff just isn’t a welcoming or family-friendly institution.”
The lawsuit then breaks down a few of the remarks Arnett allegedly made, “from the purely defamatory to the lewd, unsettling and weird” — calling them “insulting, racially insensitive … and lewd.”
- Defendant requested a buyer “I like watching my spouse sleep with different males. Is that one thing you’d be occupied with?” Based mostly on Defendant’s later re-posting of a third-party criticism/warning about Defendant’s harassing conduct (both this incident or one other, comparable interplay), this buyer left and known as the police.
- Defendant instructed an agent to loudly complain that there have been cockroaches in his In-N-Out meals in entrance of a possible buyer after which informed the potential buyer that “We have had a fairly unhealthy cockroach drawback this week,” resulting in the shopper leaving.
- Defendant instructed an agent to tug a condom out of an In-N-Out take-away bag in entrance of a possible buyer after which requested the shopper “Would you want a condom along with your order, sir?”
- Defendant informed clients having fun with their In-N-Out meals that his “supervisor” had “put his toes within the lettuce” and did different “bizarre s–t” to Plaintiff’s meals.
- Defendant informed a possible buyer that In-N-Out was “solely serving homosexual individuals” that day, inflicting the shopper to drive off.
- After pretending to take a number of completely different potential clients’ orders, Defendant informed these potential clients that their whole for Plaintiff’s famously inexpensive meals was exorbitantly excessive.
- Defendant inquired whether or not a possible buyer wished to strive a “monkey burger,” which he described as a burger with a “rattling close to black” bun. Plaintiff affords no such meals merchandise on its menu.
- Defendant inquired whether or not a possible buyer wished to strive “doggy model” fries, which Defendant described as “actual messy.” Plaintiff affords no such meals merchandise on its menu.
- Defendant taped a faux “Worker of the Month” placard with Defendant’s image on the partitions of assorted In-N-Out areas.
- Defendant refused to depart the premises after being ordered to take action by precise In-N-Out Associates.
In-N-Out says that due to his alleged actions, they’ve “suffered, and can proceed to endure, irreparable harm for which it has no sufficient treatment at regulation.”
The corporate is suing for damages, in addition to earnings Arnett made out of the video.
Additionally they need him completely banned from any In-N-Out institutions and parking tons and never solely demanded the removing of any posts concerning the chain, however for him to “destroy” any gadgets he possesses with the corporate’s brand.
