The burger joint filed a lawsuit final week in opposition to Bryan Arnett, recognized 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 as a way 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 wherein he allegedly referenced the authorized motion — was set to personal.

The incident in query, per In-N-Out occurred on Easter Sunday 2025, with the burger chain claiming Arnett visited “a number of” places wearing “a pretend uniform” with their emblem on it. They accuse him of approaching prospects “as he made lewd, derogatory, and profane remarks, corresponding 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 prospects; (2) providing meals merchandise ‘doggy model’; 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 model” comment is a sexual spin on the chain’s “animal model” choice on their meals, wherein they cowl it with their particular sauce, pickles and grilled onions.

The chain claims that by posting the video, Arnett was “falsely telling tons of of 1000’s of viewers that Plaintiff’s eating places are unsanitary and that Plaintiff shouldn’t be 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 taken with?” 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 informed the potential buyer that “We have had a reasonably unhealthy cockroach downside 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 together with your order, sir?”
• Defendant informed prospects 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 prospects’ orders, Defendant informed these potential prospects that their whole for Plaintiff’s famously inexpensive meals was exorbitantly excessive.
• Defendant inquired whether or not a possible buyer needed to strive a “monkey burger,” which he described as a burger with a “rattling close to black” bun. Plaintiff presents no such meals merchandise on its menu.
• Defendant inquired whether or not a possible buyer needed to strive “doggy model” fries, which Defendant described as “actual messy.” Plaintiff presents no such meals merchandise on its menu.
• Defendant taped a pretend “Worker of the Month” placard with Defendant’s image on the partitions of assorted In-N-Out places.
• 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 undergo, irreparable harm for which it has no ample treatment at legislation.”

The corporate is suing for damages, in addition to earnings Arnett produced from the video.