The burger joint claims that whereas “impersonating” an worker, the favored YouTuber made a variety of “racially insensitive, weird, and lewd remarks” — together with asking a buyer in the event that they’d sleep along with his spouse whereas he watched.
One YouTuber’s video about In-N-Out has landed him in double double hassle.
The burger joint filed a lawsuit final week towards 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 prospects — making what In-N-Out calls “lewd, derogatory, and profane remarks” damaging their popularity.
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 prospects’ belief, filming these prospects with out their consent, after which willfully disseminating these movies on-line, replete with false and deceptive statements impugning In-N-Out’s popularity 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 during 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 emblem on it. They accuse him of approaching prospects “as he made lewd, derogatory, and profane remarks, reminiscent of stating that In-N-Out had cockroaches and condoms in its meals, and that In-N-Out Associates put their ft in lettuce served to prospects; (2) providing meals merchandise ‘doggy fashion’; and (3) asking a possible buyer whether or not the shopper would sleep along with his spouse and permit Arnett to look at.”
The “doggy fashion” comment is a sexual spin on the chain’s “animal fashion” possibility on their meals, during which they cowl it with their particular sauce, pickles and grilled onions.
SYFY
Girl Identified with PTSD After Work ‘Incident’ Involving Chucky Doll: Lawsuit
View Story
The chain claims that by posting the video, Arnett was “falsely telling a whole lot 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’ll be enthusiastic about?” Based mostly on Defendant’s later re-posting of a third-party grievance/warning about Defendant’s harassing conduct (both this incident or one other, comparable interplay), this buyer left and referred to 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 advised the potential buyer that “We have had a reasonably unhealthy cockroach drawback this week,” resulting in the shopper leaving.
- Defendant instructed an agent to drag 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 together with your order, sir?”
- Defendant advised prospects having fun with their In-N-Out meals that his “supervisor” had “put his ft within the lettuce” and did different “bizarre s–t” to Plaintiff’s meals.
- Defendant advised 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 totally different potential prospects’ orders, Defendant advised these potential prospects that their complete for Plaintiff’s famously reasonably priced meals was exorbitantly excessive.
- Defendant inquired whether or not a possible buyer needed to attempt a “monkey burger,” which he described as a burger with a “rattling close to black” bun. Plaintiff gives no such meals merchandise on its menu.
- Defendant inquired whether or not a possible buyer needed to attempt “doggy fashion” fries, which Defendant described as “actual messy.” Plaintiff gives 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 go away 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 ample treatment at regulation.”
The corporate is suing for damages, in addition to earnings Arnett comprised of the video.
Additionally they need him completely banned from any In-N-Out institutions and parking heaps and never solely demanded the elimination of any posts in regards to the chain, however for him to “destroy” any gadgets he possesses with the corporate’s emblem.
