The burger joint claims that while “impersonating” an employee, the popular YouTuber made a number of “racially insensitive, bizarre, and lewd remarks” — including asking a customer if they’d sleep with his wife while he watched.
One YouTuber’s video about In-N-Out has landed him in double double trouble.
The burger joint filed a lawsuit last week against Bryan Arnett, known for his viral pranks on YouTube. In the video, which has since been pulled down, he reportedly dressed in In-N-Out branded clothing while interacting with potential customers — making what In-N-Out calls “lewd, derogatory, and profane remarks” damaging their reputation.
They’re suing for trademark infringement, trespassing and business defamation, among other alleged offenses.
The lawsuit accuses Arnett of “repeatedly impersonating an In-N-Out Associate in order to abuse In-N-Out customers’ trust, filming those customers without their consent, and then willfully disseminating these videos online, replete with false and misleading statements impugning In-N-Out’s reputation and food quality.”
Per the docs, In-N-Out requested Arnett pull down the videos; when he didn’t, they filed suit. After the lawsuit was filed, the video — and another in which he allegedly referenced the legal action — was set to private.
The incident in question, per In-N-Out happened on Easter Sunday 2025, with the burger chain claiming Arnett visited “multiple” locations dressed in “a fake uniform” with their logo on it. They accuse him of approaching customers “as he made lewd, derogatory, and profane remarks, such as stating that In-N-Out had cockroaches and condoms in its food, and that In-N-Out Associates put their feet in lettuce served to customers; (2) offering food products ‘doggy style’; and (3) asking a potential customer whether the customer would sleep with his wife and allow Arnett to watch.”
The “doggy style” remark is a sexual spin on the chain’s “animal style” option on their food, in which they cover it with their special sauce, pickles and grilled onions.
SYFY
Woman Diagnosed with PTSD After Work ‘Incident’ Involving Chucky Doll: Lawsuit
View Story
The chain claims that by posting the video, Arnett was “falsely telling hundreds of thousands of viewers that Plaintiff’s restaurants are unsanitary and that Plaintiff is not a welcoming or family-friendly establishment.”
The lawsuit then breaks down some of the remarks Arnett allegedly made, “from the purely defamatory to the lewd, unsettling and bizarre” — calling them “insulting, racially insensitive … and lewd.”
- Defendant asked a customer “I like watching my wife sleep with other men. Is that something you would be interested in?” Based on Defendant’s later re-posting of a third-party complaint/warning about Defendant’s harassing conduct (either this incident or another, similar interaction), this customer left and called the police.
- Defendant instructed an agent to loudly complain that there were cockroaches in his In-N-Out food in front of a potential customer and then told the potential customer that “We’ve had a pretty bad cockroach problem this week,” leading to the customer leaving.
- Defendant instructed an agent to pull a condom out of an In-N-Out take-away bag in front of a potential customer and then asked the customer “Would you like a condom with your order, sir?”
- Defendant told customers enjoying their In-N-Out meals that his “manager” had “put his feet in the lettuce” and did other “weird s–t” to Plaintiff’s food.
- Defendant told a potential customer that In-N-Out was “only serving gay people” that day, causing the customer to drive off.
- After pretending to take multiple different potential customers’ orders, Defendant told those potential customers that their total for Plaintiff’s famously affordable food was exorbitantly high.
- Defendant inquired whether a potential customer wanted to try a “monkey burger,” which he described as a burger with a “damn near black” bun. Plaintiff offers no such food item on its menu.
- Defendant inquired whether a potential customer wanted to try “doggy style” fries, which Defendant described as “real messy.” Plaintiff offers no such food item on its menu.
- Defendant taped a fake “Employee of the Month” placard with Defendant’s picture on the walls of various In-N-Out locations.
- Defendant refused to leave the premises after being ordered to do so by actual In-N-Out Associates.
In-N-Out says that because of his alleged actions, they have “suffered, and will continue to suffer, irreparable injury for which it has no adequate remedy at law.”
The company is suing for damages, as well as profits Arnett made from the video.
They also want him permanently banned from any In-N-Out establishments and parking lots and not only demanded the removal of any posts about the chain, but for him to “destroy” any items he possesses with the company’s logo.
