Trevor McNally, the YouTuber (McNallyOfficial) known for humiliating high-security locks, found himself sued by Proven Industries after effortlessly bypassing their “unpickable” lock with a bit of aluminium can. What followed was a bizarre court case full of PR disasters, failed strategies, and a desperate attempt by Proven Industries to seal nearly every document—after making them public. This blog - number 4 in the series! - dives into the full absurdity of a court case that should never have existed, and a company that just keeps making it worse. More
Proven Industries vs McNally
The Case of the Self-Inflicted Wound
(Proven Industries v McNally Blog #4)
This is Part 4 in the Proven Industries versus Trevor McNally (AKA McNallyOfficial) Lock Picking Court Farce series. If you missed the first three glorious instalments, you can find them [HERE].
BRIEF SUMMARY: How It Started: Hold My Beer, Said Proven Industries..
It all began when Proven Industries, a lock manufacturer with more confidence than competence, took to social media to brag about their unbeatable lock. “Just look,” they said, “you can’t get into it. We tried every way!” Or words to that effect, then proceeded to hit it with a sledgehammer about ten times. By the way, you don't need a sledgehammer to crack a walnut (or a lock).
Someone in the comments, very sensibly, said: “Let’s see McNally try.”
Proven Industries, drunk on their own hype, replied: “He’d never go after our lock. He only targets the easy ones.” They actually did say that. Oh dear. Big mistake. The first of many mistakes Proven Industries would make, and keep us in giggles for far longer than I initially thought. It's been the lock picking court case that just keeps giving.
I thought we'd never do better than the KABA SIMPLEX MADNESS, but Proven Industries versus McNally is proving (pun intended) to be an extraordinary case of... well it's just surreal!
Anyway - challenge issued and McNally accepted. Of course he did. This kind of stuff is gold dust for a lock picker working on social media! And exploiting vulnerabilities like the one in Proven Industries' lock is McNally's bread and butter.
Trevor McNally (AKA McNallyOfficial) doing his thing on a Proven Industries lock.
He picked their “unpickable” lock using a sliver of aluminium from a fizzy drinks can as a shim. That’s right. This DIY lock-bypass tool involved recycling. It's what Greta would’ve wanted. How dare you!
So what did Proven Industries do in response to this very public evisceration?
They did what no one advised and what every PR person would beg them not to: they sued him. I'm guessing that at that point, Trevor McNally smiled and needed a friend to put his lips back into place before his joy tore his face in half.
Proven Industries' claim? “You made it look too easy.”
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
That’s it. That was the legal premise. That's the legal weaponry Proven Industries took to court. They dared one of the internet’s most subscribed-to lock pickers to pick their lock, and when he did - efficiently, effortlessly, humiliatingly - they filed a lawsuit claiming that his competence was somehow defamatory.
You can’t make this up. But they did. They could have kept quiet, like many other lock manufacturers have after years of their locks being opened in seconds with household items, with homemade lock picks, and in McNally's case, often by hitting the lock with another of the same lock!
So that's the summary if you didn't read the other blogs, you can [HERE]
How It’s Going Now: From Lock Hype to Legal Suicide
In a plot twist that shocked no one except perhaps Proven Industries themselves, the lawsuit has not gone well. To say the least. In fact, it's been ridiculous.
It's gone so badly that Proven Industries recently filed what the law calls a voluntary dismissal. Translation: “We’d like to quietly exit stage left before this gets even more humiliating.”
But wait - they didn’t walk away entirely. They didn't exit stage left quietly, and they were not careful, metaphorically speaking, to not knock over any stage props on their way. Oh no. Quite the contrary.
They filed a dismissal without prejudice, meaning they reserve the right to refile later if they catch McNally uploading more bypass videos and just can’t resist suing him again. Because once you’ve tasted the sweet shame of public legal failure, you have to go back for seconds, or thirds? Sorry, I've lost count.
What is that, a dismissal without prejudice? Some kind of threat? No, it's either really bad legal advice or just embarrassing. My opinion, it's probably both, actually.
Trying to Seal the Evidence (And the Humiliation)
Here’s where it enters high farce territory.
Despite dismissing the case, Proven Industries requested that the judge rule on one remaining issue: a motion to seal nearly every document from the case. That includes their own complaints, exhibits, filings, court schedules, hearing notices, and, most importantly, the 126-page court transcript where they embarrassed themselves in front of a judge.
Their reasoning? People on the internet are being mean. Or more precisely: “These documents could be used to harass us.”
The only problem is… most of these documents had already been publicly available for weeks. They’d been downloaded, discussed in videos, shared on CourtListener.com, and thoroughly dissected by legal commentators and lock pickers alike. Including, notably, Canadian lawyer and YouTuber Ian Runkle, who uploaded a full breakdown - and even linked the entire unsealed transcript in the video description.
I mean, hey, Proven Industries - the cat is well out of the bag. In fact, its run down the street, been taken in by a new home and family, and the bag itself is falling apart. Down to decisions you've made!
The Opposition Filings: Someone Handed Them a Shovel, They Dug Faster
Two formal oppositions were filed against Proven’s motion to seal.
One came from McNally’s legal team. It was surgical, professional, and brutal. It noted that Proven Industries never once asked to seal any of these documents until after they lost. Not before the hearing. Not during. Only after the court denied their emergency motion for a preliminary injunction - when it was already far too late.
It also pointed out that Proven had promoted the lawsuit online, boasted about how they would expose McNally, encouraged people to search for the case, and submitted all these supposedly “sensitive” documents without sealing or redaction. They only wanted secrecy after the court ruled against them and the memes started flying. I think we can agree, it's not a good look.
The second filing came from Ian Runkle, our aforementioned Canadian YouTuber. He described himself, accurately, as non-party, accredited media, and gave the court a little reality check: “You can’t unring a bell. You can’t reseal what’s already been distributed by the internet.”
His opposition was hastily written while attending a conference, on a bad hotel Wi-Fi connection, without access to his own draft or proper case law search tools. And yet, it still made more sense than anything Proven Industries had filed in months. It's worth checking out HIS CHANNEL if you're interested in law and legal wrangles such as this one.
Runkle even noted that if you’re truly worried about people quoting you out of context, you’d want the full context public. Not hidden. Because hiding it only invites speculation, and worsens the “out of context” problem.
Highlights from the Case: You Had One Job
One of the most damning moments in the whole debacle came when Proven Industries own engineer admitted in court that, after watching McNally’s videos, he was able to bypass their lock himself - despite having zero prior lock picking experience.
In a 126-page transcript now viewed as the sacred text of lock picking comedy, Proven Industries admitted that their unpickable lock was… very much pickable.
And now they want to seal that.
The best part? They’re even trying to seal court-generated documents like the hearing schedule and notice of motion - documents that contain no sensitive information whatsoever, and were written by the court itself.
It’s not just overreach. It’s legal overreach with its pants down.
These legs do not belong to anyone at Proven Industries. They are also not Trevor McNally's. They are also not mine.
“Harassment” as a Legal Defence
Proven Industries' big excuse was that the documents could be used to incite harassment by “McNally’s followers.”
Never mind that:
-
Most of the “harassment” cited occurred before the court filings were published.
-
Proven voluntarily named individuals in their filings, including one engineer’s girlfriend. Yes, you read that correctly.
-
They had the opportunity to redact or use pseudonyms - but didn’t.
As Ian Runkle put it: “If Proven’s concern is people being identified, maybe don’t name them in the documents you yourself publish online.” Wah! Wah! Waaaaah!
Also, no one has ever been harassed by a court transcript. Nobody shows up at your house waving a 126-page PDF yelling, “Explain paragraph 14!”
It's interesting that they exposed one of their own engineers' girlfriends, because they actually telephoned McNally's wife earlier on in this farce, asking to speak to him. Eh? I'm not sure what to say about that, and I'm rarely lost for words.
Chainsaws vs Scalpels: Legal Strategy 101
If you want something sealed, you need to ask for specific redactions, not try to seal everything like you’re trying to erase your browser history before a job interview.
Courts are more likely to grant sealing if you use a scalpel. Proven brought a chainsaw. They tried to seal duplicate copies of the same document - one copy attached to their complaint, and the second copy in a later filing. They wanted one sealed, but were fine leaving the other public. That’s not how confidentiality works. That’s how toddlers play hide and seek.
Closing the Barn Door After the Horse Has Gone Viral
The court may still issue a ruling, but as McNally’s lawyer argued, the motion to seal is likely moot. The case is closed. The damage is done. The internet has receipts. And the transcript? It’s already part of legal YouTube folklore.
Proven Industries' request isn’t about confidentiality. It’s about saving face. And unfortunately for them, the internet does not do amnesia.
I asked the AI image generator MidJourney to imagine the face of someone who failed to 'save face' in a court case regarding the security failings of the lock they had manufactured...
Final Thought: You Lost. Don’t Try to Seal the Evidence of It.
The lesson here is clear.
If you manufacture a lock and claim it’s unpickable, don’t challenge a YouTuber with millions of followers to prove you wrong - especially if all he needs is a sliver of a fizzy drink can.
If you lose a case after going full PR blunder, don’t ask the court to help you hide the evidence from the very public you invited in.
And if you’re going to play stupid games, at least try not to sue the person who beat you at the game you invented.
More to come, no doubt. And if Proven Industries does decide to refile, we’ll be here - popcorn in one hand, transcript in the other. The wild world of lock picking - don't you just love it?
Chris Dangerfield
