Fitness equipment maker files defamation suit against YouTuber

Superior Health Ideas, a veteran-owned health tools producer working as Vulcan Strength Training Systems, filed a federal lawsuit in opposition to health tools reviewer Adrian Gluck and his company Gluck’s Gym LLC on October 31, 2025. The criticism alleges defamation, unfair competitors, and violations of the Lanham Act after Gluck revealed a video titled “This Is The Worst Product I’ve Ever Reviewed…” in regards to the firm’s TALOS All-In-One Fitness center.

The case raises questions in regards to the boundaries between sincere product criticism and actionable defamation within the influencer advertising and marketing ecosystem, the place content material creators derive income from affiliate relationships with producers they evaluation. Filed within the Western District of North Carolina’s Charlotte Division below case quantity 3:25-cv-878, the lawsuit seeks each financial damages and injunctive reduction to halt additional distribution of what Vulcan characterizes as a intentionally false and deceptive evaluation.

Affiliate relationship preceded unfavorable evaluation

Vulcan, a Charlotte-based firm based in 2008 and registered as a Small Deprived Enterprise with the U.S. Small Enterprise Administration, had maintained an affiliate settlement with Gluck for a number of years earlier than the disputed video. The settlement offered that Defendants would obtain commissions on gross sales generated by their promotion of Vulcan merchandise, that Vulcan would offer Defendants with Vulcan merchandise for evaluation at its discretion, and that Defendants would keep away from slander, misrepresentation, or disparagement of Vulcan merchandise, companies, or popularity.

The connection remained largely dormant till July 2024, when Gluck started requesting the TALOS All-In-One Fitness center for evaluation. He made renewed requests in October 2024, January 2025, and Could 2025. In early June 2025, Vulcan shipped the TALOS product from its Charlotte warehouse to Defendants at no cost. As configured by Defendants, the product had a retail worth exceeding $4,000.

After receiving the product, Gluck communicated with Vulcan about meeting points. He acknowledged that he was lacking some components. Vulcan suggested that new and improved components have been on order and could be forwarded as soon as acquired. Gluck additionally recognized considerations about meeting directions and cable tautness, acknowledging he hadn’t but totally examined the product because of the lacking components.

Vulcan re-sent meeting directions, together with 4 detailed schematic pages and a six-page step-by-step meeting information, and famous {that a} full 3D digital mannequin was accessible on Vulcan’s web site. Concerning cable stress, Vulcan defined that normal cables are deliberately designed with roughly 1.5 inches of slack, however shorter cables are shipped to any shopper preferring them at no cost. Throughout a follow-up phone name, Gluck mentioned the present cables have been “fantastic” and there was no want for Vulcan to ship shorter cables.

In mid-August, Vulcan discovered that the brand new components could be delayed longer than anticipated and supplied Defendants two choices: proceed ready for the components, or permit Vulcan to ship somebody to disassemble and take away the TALOS tools and take a look at once more later as soon as the upgraded components arrived. Gluck responded by inviting Vulcan to retrieve the product, saying “I haven’t got any method of transport it again or I might try this.”

Video publication adopted agreed pause

Regardless of the settlement to place the mission on maintain, Defendants publicly posted a video inside ten days exhibiting the TALOS product on digicam in what Gluck referred to as a “60-second fitness center tour,” referring to it as a “pile of shit.”

Lower than two weeks later, Defendants posted a twelve-minute video on the Patreon web site titled “I simply killed the Vulcan Talos (& possibly Vulcan too).” The Patreon video was solely accessible to members who had subscribed to Defendants’ channel, however Defendants additionally posted a free “teaser” on their Instagram web page. Shortly thereafter, Defendants posted the identical video on their YouTube channel below the title “This Is The Worst Product I’ve Ever Reviewed…” The YouTube posting stays freely accessible to the general public with out restriction.

The video opens with a picture of the TALOS product in a flaming trash bin. Gluck proceeds to make what Vulcan characterizes as deliberately false, deceptive, and disparaging statements about each the TALOS product and Vulcan as an organization.

In line with the criticism, Gluck offers an prolonged critique of cable stress, dismissing Vulcan’s rationalization about buyer preferences and saying “THIS [pointing to cable] is terrible!” The criticism notes he doesn’t disclose that Vulcan sends shorter cables to all prospects on request at no cost, or that he beforehand instructed Vulcan sending shorter cables was pointless and the present cables have been “fantastic.”

The lawsuit identifies a number of technical claims it characterizes as objectively false. Gluck claims within the video that grooves of the pulleys are too small for “these large, thick cables,” however the cables are 5mm in diameter and the pulley grooves are 9mm extensive. He falsely asserts that customers can’t modify cable stress from the trolley. He states that Vulcan’s instructions don’t clarify how you can set up the rear crossmember, inflicting him to put in it the other way up, however the crossmember solely has holes on one aspect and directions clearly present correct set up. He complains that meeting directions are incomplete, although complete directions have been emailed when the product shipped and despatched once more later, which he admitted he “missed” the primary time.

Further claims Vulcan disputes embody: Gluck’s false declare that the lat pull-up bar would not match correctly; his assertion that band pegs can’t be used with the product, which Vulcan provides as an adjunct on its web site; and his characterization of the low row operate as “the world’s lowest low row,” when some competing merchandise have decrease low rows, together with one from Rep Health that Defendants reviewed favorably.

The criticism states that every of those statements was objectively false and have been identified by Defendants to be false on the time they have been made, or alternatively have been made with out cheap foundation and with out exercising peculiar care to find out whether or not the statements have been false.

Past technical claims, Gluck makes gratuitously disparaging statements within the video. He calls Vulcan’s web site “the world’s worst web site” with “low-res, grainy-ass photos.” He calls the ordering course of “the worst expertise I’ve ever had.” He says Vulcan’s pulleys “show each single factor you might do improper” and “really feel like shit.” He says of the lat pull-down “there is no method they may have achieved worse,” claiming at one level there have been “47 or so issues” improper with it. He concludes by saying, “If I used to be one of many folks that spent my cash on this, I might be pissed.”

Strategic incentive alleged for unfavorable evaluation

The criticism alleges that Defendants have energetic affiliate relationships with Rogue Health, Rep Health, and different giant tools producers, which generate important income. These relationships create a dilemma as a result of Defendants’ enchantment relies on cultivating a popularity for fearless evaluations, however unfavorable evaluations of merchandise from giant producers would impression income.

Vulcan alleges that Defendants’ resolution was to manufacture a unfavorable and incendiary evaluation of a small producer’s product, enabling Defendants to painting themselves as crusaders whereas defending aggressive pursuits of dominant firms producing most of their income.

The video about Vulcan’s TALOS product explicitly pursues this technique, in line with the criticism. Gluck falsely asserts he has been the goal of authorized claims on account of his evaluations, when in reality the authorized paperwork he briefly shows on display don’t proof any claims, calls for, or proceedings in opposition to him. He then proclaims, “This video will not make me cash, it will lose me cash, numerous it, so go subscribe…,” with a subscribe hyperlink superimposed on the display. Gluck concludes by claiming the TALOS evaluation will “lose me 1000’s of {dollars},” which he provides as a badge of integrity.

When Defendants posted the TALOS evaluation on YouTube, Gluck pinned a textual content remark that reads partially: “Sure this video is a bit energized. Positive, it may have been extra skilled. However I do not work for these firms I work for the viewers and I hope you discover this beneficial, concise, and truthful. Additionally, subscribe as a result of this has been a anxious endeavor.” The criticism characterizes this assertion as false and deceptive as a result of Defendants do in reality “work for” Rogue Health, Rep Health, and different giant producers in that Defendants derive substantial income from favorable evaluations of these firms’ merchandise. Defendants nonetheless explicitly maintain out their assault on Vulcan and its product as proof that Defendants do not work for “these firms” writ giant.

Market impression and enterprise hurt

Defendants’ video has been broadly considered by the consuming public, together with potential prospects in North Carolina. The video has over 70,000 views on YouTube with greater than 500 person feedback.

Potential prospects have been misled by what Vulcan characterizes as false representations, with numerous commenters complimenting Gluck for his supposed “honesty” and willingness to place “integrity over revenue.”

Defendants knew and meant that their evaluation would trigger substantial hurt to Vulcan and its popularity and buyer goodwill, as evidenced by the title Defendants gave the video when first posted: “I simply killed the Vulcan Talos (& possibly Vulcan too).” Many on-line commenters specific unfavorable views about Vulcan and its product based mostly solely on the representations made by Defendants. Due to the expense of a common residence fitness center product like Vulcan’s TALOS All-In-One Fitness center, most shoppers could have no alternative to independently take a look at the product and study of the falsity of Defendants’ representations, in line with the criticism.

Vulcan maintains a wonderful popularity amongst prospects for prime quality merchandise and superior service. Opinions.io, an unbiased buyer evaluations aggregation web site, stories that Vulcan’s common ranking amongst greater than 3,400 buyer evaluations is 4.8 out of 5 stars, and that 96% of reviewers suggest Vulcan’s merchandise.

The TALOS product launched in December 2023 and has been well-received by prospects and reviewers. Storage Gyms, an unbiased evaluation web site, revealed an intensive evaluation on August 31, 2025, that concluded: “The TALOS is an distinctive piece of kit – checking a ridiculous quantity of bins on nearly any storage fitness center guidelines,” and is “nicely thought-out by way of what options to incorporate, what supplies to make use of with the intention to present each security and longevity, and how you can value it to stay extraordinarily aggressive….”

Authorized claims and cures sought

The criticism advances 4 claims for reduction. The primary alleges false and deceptive representations of truth below Part 43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B), arguing that Defendants’ video constitutes industrial promoting or promotion as a result of Defendants have been performing to advance their industrial relationships with Vulcan’s direct rivals.

The second declare alleges defamation, stating that falsehoods communicated by Defendants are likely to impeach Vulcan in its commerce or career and in any other case are likely to topic Vulcan to ridicule, contempt or shame. The criticism alleges Defendants knowingly revealed false and defamatory statements to most people, and knew the statements have been false or did not train peculiar care to find out whether or not they have been false.

The third declare alleges unfair and misleading commerce practices below N.C. Gen. Stat. §75-1.1, asserting that Defendants’ conduct was and is in commerce and impacts commerce within the State of North Carolina. The fourth declare alleges frequent legislation unfair competitors, arguing that Defendants’ video constitutes unfair competitors in violation of North Carolina frequent legislation by falsely disparaging Vulcan and its product to advance Defendants’ industrial relationships with Vulcan’s direct rivals.

Vulcan seeks preliminary and everlasting injunctive reduction enjoining Defendants from additional publication or distribution of their video on any platform or medium. The corporate requests that Defendants be ordered to publish a retraction on every platform the place the video has been revealed and to undertake or compensate Vulcan for endeavor corrective promoting fairly calculated to aim to mitigate the hurt.

For financial reduction, Vulcan seeks precise damages sustained by cause of Defendants’ violations of the Lanham Act, to be trebled pursuant to fifteen U.S.C. § 1117. For defamation, Vulcan seeks damages in quantities to be proved at trial, or alternatively presumed damages as allowed by legislation, along with punitive damages pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 1D-15. For unfair and misleading commerce practices, Vulcan seeks precise damages to be trebled pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 75-16. For frequent legislation unfair competitors, Vulcan seeks damages along with punitive damages.

The criticism additionally seeks legal professional charges below each the Lanham Act and North Carolina’s unfair and misleading commerce practices statute. The case establishes federal jurisdiction based mostly on the matter in controversy exceeding $75,000 unique of curiosity and prices, with full range of citizenship between the events.

Vulcan by its legal professional made written request to Defendants that they withdraw and proper the false representations of their video, however Defendants have failed to take action. The conduct is ongoing, and the criticism alleges it can trigger persevering with, escalating and irreparable injury to Vulcan’s enterprise and popularity except and till Defendants are enjoined by the Courtroom.

The criticism calls for trial by jury of all points correctly so triable. The case was filed by Rodrick J. Enns of Enns & Archer LLP in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, representing Superior Health Ideas, Inc. d/b/a Vulcan Power Coaching Methods.

Implications for influencer advertising and marketing

The case arrives as marketing professionals face increasing scrutiny over disclosure practices. Within the class of associates and companions, which incorporates social media influencers, the share of income reached 20.3% on Cyber Monday 2024, up 6.8% year-over-year. Knowledge reveals that influencers convert buyers 6 occasions greater than social media general.

The stress between genuine evaluations and affiliate income relationships has intensified as influencer advertising and marketing matures. LinkedIn and Ipsos research shows 94% of marketers agree trust building represents the most important factor for B2B brand success, with influencer collaboration delivering a 39 share level raise in model consciousness objectives in comparison with conventional advertising and marketing approaches.

The health tools evaluation ecosystem operates inside broader regulatory frameworks governing advertising transparency and consumer protection. The Federal Commerce Fee has expanded disclosure necessities throughout digital promoting sectors, although health tools evaluations focusing on grownup audiences fall exterior specialised kids’s privateness protections.

Transparency requirements continue expanding across advertising platforms, with the Media Ranking Council releasing complete requirements in September 2025. These developments mirror industry-wide efforts to deal with belief deficits in digital promoting, although most deal with programmatic public sale mechanics quite than influencer content material.

The Vulcan lawsuit differs from latest FTC enforcement actions targeting deceptive business opportunity schemes, the place false earnings claims and faux testimonials shaped the idea of fraud allegations. The health tools case as a substitute facilities on product evaluation accuracy and the extent to which unfavorable evaluations represent protected opinion versus actionable false statements of truth.

Digital advertising fraud schemes have drawn regulatory attention, with federal prosecutors charging promoting executives who exploited cellular promoting transactions to orchestrate accounting fraud. The Vulcan case presents completely different dynamics, specializing in content material creator speech quite than monetary assertion manipulation.

The lawsuit’s end result might affect how content material creators steadiness affiliate relationships with crucial product assessments. Defendants preserve a web site stating their enterprise “strives to offer in-depth and sincere evaluations on nicely examined objects.” In addition they preserve a presence on Patreon, a web based monetization platform that permits content material creators to run subscription companies, and understand promoting income when their evaluations are considered on YouTube, Instagram, and different platforms.

The case will take a look at whether or not Defendants’ statements represent protected opinion below First Modification ideas or actionable false statements of truth. Courts typically defend vigorous criticism and subjective opinions about merchandise, however not false statements of verifiable indisputable fact that injury enterprise popularity. The criticism’s detailed factual allegations try to characterize lots of Gluck’s statements as objectively verifiable claims quite than protected opinion.

Product evaluation defamation instances require plaintiffs to show that challenged statements are false statements of truth quite than protected opinion, that defendants made the statements with data of falsity or reckless disregard for fact, and that the statements prompted precise injury to the plaintiff’s enterprise. The criticism makes an attempt to fulfill these components by detailed technical specs contradicting Gluck’s claims and proof of income impression from the unfavorable evaluation.

The case additionally raises questions in regards to the extent to which affiliate relationships create conflicts of curiosity that must be disclosed to audiences. Gluck’s pinned remark asserting he would not “work for these firms” whereas deriving income from affiliate relationships with competing producers might change into central to the litigation. The criticism characterizes this illustration as false and deceptive, arguing it creates a misunderstanding of independence whereas Defendants really preserve substantial monetary incentives favoring sure producers.

Timeline

• December 2023: Vulcan launches TALOS All-In-One Fitness center product
• July 2024: Gluck begins requesting TALOS product for evaluation
• October 2024: Gluck makes renewed request for TALOS evaluation product
• January 2025: Gluck makes third request for TALOS evaluation product
• Could 2025: Gluck makes fourth request for TALOS evaluation product
• June 2025: Vulcan ships TALOS product valued at over $4,000 to Defendants at no cost
• Mid-August 2025: Vulcan provides to retrieve product on account of components delay; Gluck agrees
• Late August 2025: Defendants submit “60-second fitness center tour” video calling TALOS “a pile of shit”
• Early September 2025: Defendants submit twelve-minute video titled “I simply killed the Vulcan Talos (& possibly Vulcan too)” on Patreon and “This Is The Worst Product I’ve Ever Reviewed…” on YouTube
• August 31, 2025: Garage Gyms publishes favorable independent review of TALOS
• October 31, 2025: Vulcan recordsdata lawsuit in Western District of North Carolina
• November 4, 2025: Attorney Rob Freund shares case details on social media

Abstract

Who: Superior Health Ideas, Inc. d/b/a Vulcan Power Coaching Methods, a veteran-owned North Carolina health tools producer, filed go well with in opposition to Adrian Gluck and Gluck’s Fitness center LLC, a Connecticut-based health tools evaluation operation that produces video evaluations on YouTube, Patreon, and different platforms.

What: Federal lawsuit alleging defamation, violations of the Lanham Act for false promoting, unfair and misleading commerce practices below North Carolina legislation, and customary legislation unfair competitors, based mostly on a video evaluation titled “This Is The Worst Product I’ve Ever Reviewed…” that Vulcan characterizes as containing objectively false technical claims and gratuitously disparaging statements in regards to the firm’s TALOS All-In-One Fitness center product.

When: The criticism was filed on October 31, 2025, within the Western District of North Carolina below case quantity 3:25-cv-878, following video publication in early September 2025 and previous communications between the events extending again to June 2025 when Vulcan shipped the product to Defendants for evaluation.

The place: The case was filed within the Charlotte Division of the Western District of North Carolina, the place Vulcan maintains its principal administrative center and warehouse, and the place the allegedly defamatory video was revealed and considered by residents of the district, inflicting injury to Vulcan’s enterprise in that location.

Why: Vulcan alleges Defendants fabricated a unfavorable evaluation of a small producer’s product to domesticate a popularity for fearless evaluations whereas defending affiliate income relationships with giant producers like Rogue Health and Rep Health, leading to misplaced gross sales, impaired popularity, and irreparable injury to buyer goodwill, with the video accumulating over 70,000 views and greater than 500 feedback that influenced potential prospects in opposition to buying Vulcan’s product.