In-N-Out Burger, the iconic California-based fast-food chain, has filed a federal lawsuit against YouTuber Bryan Arnett for a prank video that crossed legal and ethical lines. Posted on April 25, 2025, the now-private video showed Arnett posing as an In-N-Out employee at multiple Southern California locations, including Glendale and Valencia, on Easter Sunday when all restaurants were closed. Dressed in a fake uniform—red apron, white shirt, and paper In-N-Out hat—Arnett made lewd, defamatory remarks to customers, damaging the chain’s family-friendly reputation. This isn’t In-N-Out’s first legal battle with pranksters, but this case could set a precedent for holding content creators accountable. Here’s what you need to know about the In-N-Out lawsuit 2025 and its implications for businesses and influencers.
What Happened in the Bryan Arnett In-N-Out Prank?
On Easter Sunday 2025, Bryan Arnett, a 24-year-old YouTuber with over 600,000 followers across YouTube and Instagram, filmed a prank at closed In-N-Out locations. Posing as an employee, he set up cones, used fake menus, and interacted with unsuspecting customers in the drive-thru. The lawsuit, filed on June 20, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleges Arnett made “lewd, derogatory, and profane remarks” that harmed In-N-Out’s brand. Specific claims include:
- False Health Code Violations: Arnett and an accomplice staged a scene claiming a cockroach was in a customer’s order, with Arnett stating the location had a “pretty bad cockroach problem.” Another remark suggested condoms were in the food.
- Inappropriate Comments: He asked a customer, “I like watching my wife sleep with other men. Is that something you’d be interested in?” He also twisted In-N-Out’s “animal style” menu option into a crude “doggy style” reference and told one customer the restaurant was “only serving gay people today,” causing them to drive away.
- Defamatory Statements: Arnett claimed a “manager” put “feet in the lettuce” served to customers, misleading viewers about food safety.
The video, which garnered 56,000 views before being set to private, sparked complaints, with at least one customer calling the police. In-N-Out sent a cease-and-desist letter on May 2, 2025, which Arnett ignored, prompting the lawsuit. The chain seeks a lifetime ban on Arnett from its 421 locations, forfeiture of video profits, and damages for trademark infringement, defamation, and unfair competition.
Why Did In-N-Out Sue Bryan Arnett?
In-N-Out is fiercely protective of its family-friendly image, a cornerstone of its brand since 1948. The lawsuit emphasizes that Arnett’s actions weren’t harmless pranks but deliberate attempts to exploit the chain’s reputation for views and revenue. According to In-N-Out’s Chief Legal & Business Officer, Arnie Wensinger, “For over seven decades, we have worked hard to create a welcoming and enjoyable experience for every Customer… These individuals have engaged in behavior that includes deception, trespass, lewdness, and other actions that have then been posted on social media for their personal and monetary gain at the expense of our Customers and the In-N-Out Burger brand.”
This isn’t In-N-Out’s first legal rodeo. In 2018, they sued YouTuber Cody Roeder (Trollmunchies) for posing as the CEO and criticizing food quality, seeking $25,000 in damages. Roeder took a three-year hiatus from pranks post-lawsuit, suggesting In-N-Out’s aggressive stance. Arnett’s history of pranks—paying with pennies, posting fake “employee of the month” plaques—further fueled In-N-Out’s response, as he’d been removed from locations before.
Legal Implications of the In-N-Out Lawsuit
The lawsuit accuses Arnett of:
- Trademark Infringement: Using In-N-Out’s logo and uniform to falsely represent the company.
- Defamation: Making false statements about food safety and employee conduct that harmed In-N-Out’s reputation.
- Unfair Competition: Exploiting the brand for personal gain through deceptive practices.
- Trespassing: Filming on In-N-Out property without permission.
If successful, the lawsuit could bankrupt Arnett, who admitted in a now-private response video, “I knew I was kinda teetering the line a little bit, pushing my luck.” His cavalier attitude—saying he’s not worried about the lawsuit but upset about a potential In-N-Out ban—may weaken his defense, as it suggests intentional misconduct. Legal analysts note this case could reshape influencer liability, setting a precedent for corporations to pursue financial damages and revenue forfeiture against pranksters.
For businesses, this highlights the power of trademark and defamation laws to protect brand integrity. For content creators, it’s a warning: pranks that harm a company’s reputation or mislead consumers can lead to severe financial and legal consequences.
How Does This Affect You?
If you’re a customer, vendor, or business owner affected by misleading online content, this case underscores your rights. Businesses like In-N-Out can suffer lost sales and reputational damage from viral pranks, while customers may face confusion or distress. If you’ve encountered similar issues—whether as a consumer misled by false claims or a business targeted by harmful content—you may have legal recourse. Consulting a trademark or defamation attorney can help you explore options like cease-and-desist letters or lawsuits to protect your interests.
Content creators should take note: platforms like YouTube and TikTok rarely penalize harmful pranks, but legal accountability is rising. To avoid lawsuits, ensure pranks are consensual, avoid trademarked brands, and steer clear of defamatory or offensive behavior.
What’s Next for Bryan Arnett and In-N-Out?
The lawsuit’s outcome is uncertain, but In-N-Out’s history suggests they won’t back down. If the case proceeds to court or settles in In-N-Out’s favor, Arnett faces a lifetime ban, profit forfeiture, and potentially crippling damages. His response video, filmed while eating In-N-Out in his car, may further damage his case by admitting he knew the risks. Social media sentiment on X and Reddit leans heavily against Arnett, with users calling for accountability: “People need to learn pranks have consequences… In-N-Out has the money to pay a team of lawyers to make this guy’s life miserable.”
This case could deter future pranksters, especially as corporations leverage federal litigation to combat viral content that threatens their brand. For now, Arnett’s prank has backfired, proving that “just a prank, bro” doesn’t hold up in court.
Protect Your Rights Today
If you’re a business owner facing similar issues or a consumer affected by deceptive online content, don’t wait. Contact a qualified attorney for a free consultation to discuss your legal options. Whether it’s trademark infringement, defamation, or unfair competition, expert legal advice can safeguard your reputation and finances.
Related Articles
- GM L87 Engine Lawsuit: What Drivers Need to Know (artifact_id: 25a30e53-3449-4f28-877a-f1012a37eb02)
- CP4 Fuel Pump Lawsuit: Are You Eligible for Compensation? (artifact_id: ba4029fb-5cf8-4197-9a24-24b5df79a876)
- How to Document Defects for a Strong Lawsuit (artifact_id: 1ca0e535-86bc-40d1-a34e-40e760d0e577)
Last Updated: June 26, 2025
Sources
- YouTube Transcript, “YouTuber Facing Massive Lawsuit Over Prank – YouTube” (youtube.com/watch?v=bPcvWwspjmI, 2025)
- Los Angeles Times, “In-N-Out sues YouTuber over fake employee prank video” (latimes.com, June 25, 2025)
- SFGate, “‘Unsettling and bizarre’ YouTube prank leads to federal In-N-Out lawsuit” (sfgate.com, June 24, 2025)
- USA Herald, “YouTube Prankster Faces Federal Lawsuit as In-N-Out Strikes Back” (usaherald.com, June 25, 2025)
- Daily Mail, “In-N-Out sues YouTuber who dressed up as an employee to film lewd prank” (dailymail.co.uk, June 26, 2025)
- Newsweek, “In-N-Out Sues YouTuber Over ‘Unsettling and Bizarre’ Pranks” (newsweek.com, June 25, 2025)
