McNally's attorney addressed this seal request, pointing out that the company had not been concerned about these issues until it lost its bid for a preliminary injunction. In fact, “Proven boasted to its social media followers about the way it sued McNally and its confidence that it would win. Proven even encouraged people to look for the lawsuit.” Now, however, the company “suddenly finds out[ed] need for secrecy.”
The judge has not yet ruled on the sealing request.
Another way
The strange thing about the whole situation is that Proven actually managed to respond constructively to the first McNally video. Its own response video opened with a bit of humor (the host drinks a can of Liquid Death), acknowledged the problem (“we've had some controversy over the past few days”) and made it clear that Proven could handle criticism (“we're not afraid of a little feedback.”)
The video further showed how their locks work and provided some context about shimming attacks and their likelihood of real-world use. It ended by showing how users concerned about shimming attacks could opt for more expensive but more secure lock cores that should resist the technique.
Fast, professional, non-defensive: a great way to deal with controversy.
But it was all blown apart by the company's angry statements on social media, which were unprofessional and defensive, and the lawsuits, which were spectacularly ill-conceived both legally and policy-wise. Ultimately, the case became a classic example of the Streisand effect, where the attempt to censor information can instead draw attention to it.
Based on the number of times the lawsuit mentions 1) ridicule and 2) harassment, it appears that the case quickly became a personal matter for Proven's owner and employees, who felt mocked or threatened. That's understandable, but being mocked is not illegal and should never have led to a lawsuit or copyright claim. As for online harassment, it remains a serious and unresolved issue, but launching a personal vendetta – and on rather flimsy legal grounds – against McNally himself was patently unwise. (Especially because McNally had a huge following and had already responded to DMCA takedowns by making more videos on the subject; this was not someone who would easily be intimidated by a lawsuit.)
In the end, Proven's lawsuit likely cost the company a lot of time and money, and produced little other than bad publicity.
