Fitness equipment maker files defamation suit against YouTuber

Advanced Fitness Concepts, a veteran-owned fitness equipment manufacturer operating as Vulcan Strength Training Systems, filed a federal lawsuit against fitness equipment reviewer Adrian Gluck and his company Gluck's Gym LLC on October 31, 2025. The complaint alleges defamation, unfair competition, and violations of the Lanham Act after Gluck published a video titled "This Is The Worst Product I've Ever Reviewed..." about the company's TALOS All-In-One Gym.

The case raises questions about the boundaries between honest product criticism and actionable defamation in the influencer marketing ecosystem, where content creators derive revenue from affiliate relationships with manufacturers they review. Filed in the Western District of North Carolina's Charlotte Division under case number 3:25-cv-878, the lawsuit seeks both monetary damages and injunctive relief to halt further distribution of what Vulcan characterizes as a deliberately false and misleading review.

Affiliate relationship preceded negative review

Vulcan, a Charlotte-based company founded in 2008 and registered as a Small Disadvantaged Business with the U.S. Small Business Administration, had maintained an affiliate agreement with Gluck for several years before the disputed video. The agreement provided that Defendants would receive commissions on sales generated by their promotion of Vulcan products, that Vulcan would provide Defendants with Vulcan products for review at its discretion, and that Defendants would avoid slander, misrepresentation, or disparagement of Vulcan products, services, or reputation.

The relationship remained largely dormant until July 2024, when Gluck began requesting the TALOS All-In-One Gym for review. He made renewed requests in October 2024, January 2025, and May 2025. In early June 2025, Vulcan shipped the TALOS product from its Charlotte warehouse to Defendants at no charge. As configured by Defendants, the product had a retail value exceeding $4,000.

After receiving the product, Gluck communicated with Vulcan about assembly issues. He stated that he was missing some parts. Vulcan advised that new and improved parts were on order and would be forwarded once received. Gluck also identified concerns about assembly instructions and cable tautness, acknowledging he hadn't yet fully tested the product due to the missing parts.

Vulcan re-sent assembly instructions, including four detailed schematic pages and a six-page step-by-step assembly guide, and noted that a full 3D virtual model was available on Vulcan's website. Regarding cable tension, Vulcan explained that standard cables are intentionally designed with approximately 1.5 inches of slack, but shorter cables are shipped to any consumer preferring them at no charge. During a follow-up telephone call, Gluck said the existing cables were "fine" and there was no need for Vulcan to send shorter cables.

In mid-August, Vulcan learned that the new parts would be delayed longer than expected and offered Defendants two options: continue waiting for the parts, or allow Vulcan to send someone to disassemble and remove the TALOS equipment and try again later once the upgraded parts arrived. Gluck responded by inviting Vulcan to retrieve the product, saying "I don't have any way of shipping it back or I'd do that."

Video publication followed agreed pause

Despite the agreement to put the project on hold, Defendants publicly posted a video within ten days showing the TALOS product on camera in what Gluck called a "60-second gym tour," referring to it as a "pile of shit."

Less than two weeks later, Defendants posted a twelve-minute video on the Patreon website titled "I just killed the Vulcan Talos (& maybe Vulcan too)." The Patreon video was only available to members who had subscribed to Defendants' channel, but Defendants also posted a free "teaser" on their Instagram page. Shortly thereafter, Defendants posted the same video on their YouTube channel under the title "This Is The Worst Product I've Ever Reviewed..." The YouTube posting remains freely available to the public without restriction.

The video opens with an image of the TALOS product in a flaming trash bin. Gluck proceeds to make what Vulcan characterizes as intentionally false, misleading, and disparaging statements about both the TALOS product and Vulcan as a company.

According to the complaint, Gluck provides an extended critique of cable tension, dismissing Vulcan's explanation about customer preferences and saying "THIS [pointing to cable] is awful!" The complaint notes he does not disclose that Vulcan sends shorter cables to all customers on request at no charge, or that he previously told Vulcan sending shorter cables was unnecessary and the existing cables were "fine."

The lawsuit identifies multiple technical claims it characterizes as objectively false. Gluck claims in the video that grooves of the pulleys are too small for "these big, thick cables," but the cables are 5mm in diameter and the pulley grooves are 9mm wide. He falsely asserts that users cannot adjust cable tension from the trolley. He states that Vulcan's directions do not explain how to install the rear crossmember, causing him to install it upside down, but the crossmember only has holes on one side and instructions clearly show proper installation. He complains that assembly instructions are incomplete, though comprehensive instructions were emailed when the product shipped and sent again later, which he admitted he "missed" the first time.

Additional claims Vulcan disputes include: Gluck's false claim that the lat pull-up bar doesn't fit properly; his assertion that band pegs cannot be used with the product, which Vulcan offers as an accessory on its website; and his characterization of the low row function as "the world's lowest low row," when some competing products have lower low rows, including one from Rep Fitness that Defendants reviewed favorably.

The complaint states that each of these statements was objectively false and were known by Defendants to be false at the time they were made, or alternatively were made without reasonable basis and without exercising ordinary care to determine whether the statements were false.

Beyond technical claims, Gluck makes gratuitously disparaging statements in the video. He calls Vulcan's website "the world's worst website" with "low-res, grainy-ass pictures." He calls the ordering process "the worst experience I've ever had." He says Vulcan's pulleys "demonstrate every single thing you could do wrong" and "feel like shit." He says of the lat pull-down "there's no way they could have done worse," claiming at one point there were "47 or so things" wrong with it. He concludes by saying, "If I was one of the people that spent my money on this, I'd be pissed."

Strategic incentive alleged for negative review

The complaint alleges that Defendants have active affiliate relationships with Rogue Fitness, Rep Fitness, and other large equipment manufacturers, which generate significant revenue. These relationships create a dilemma because Defendants' appeal depends on cultivating a reputation for fearless reviews, but negative reviews of products from large manufacturers would impact revenue.

Vulcan alleges that Defendants' solution was to fabricate a negative and incendiary review of a small manufacturer's product, enabling Defendants to portray themselves as crusaders while protecting competitive interests of dominant companies generating most of their revenue.

The video about Vulcan's TALOS product explicitly pursues this strategy, according to the complaint. Gluck falsely asserts he has been the target of legal claims due to his reviews, when in fact the legal documents he briefly displays on screen do not evidence any claims, demands, or proceedings against him. He then proclaims, "This video won't make me money, it'll lose me money, a lot of it, so go subscribe...," with a subscribe link superimposed on the screen. Gluck concludes by claiming the TALOS review will "lose me thousands of dollars," which he offers as a badge of integrity.

When Defendants posted the TALOS review on YouTube, Gluck pinned a text comment that reads in part: "Yes this video is a bit energized. Sure, it could have been more professional. But I don't work for these companies I work for the viewers and I hope you find this helpful, concise, and fair. Also, subscribe because this has been a stressful endeavor." The complaint characterizes this statement as false and misleading because Defendants do in fact "work for" Rogue Fitness, Rep Fitness, and other large manufacturers in that Defendants derive substantial revenue from favorable reviews of those companies' products. Defendants nonetheless explicitly hold out their attack on Vulcan and its product as evidence that Defendants don't work for "these companies" writ large.

Market impact and business harm

Defendants' video has been widely viewed by the consuming public, including potential customers in North Carolina. The video has over 70,000 views on YouTube with more than 500 user comments.

Potential customers have been misled by what Vulcan characterizes as false representations, with a large number of commenters complimenting Gluck for his supposed "honesty" and willingness to put "integrity over profit."

Defendants knew and intended that their review would cause substantial harm to Vulcan and its reputation and customer goodwill, as evidenced by the title Defendants gave the video when first posted: "I just killed the Vulcan Talos (& maybe Vulcan too)." Many online commenters express negative views about Vulcan and its product based solely on the representations made by Defendants. Because of the expense of a universal home gym product like Vulcan's TALOS All-In-One Gym, most consumers will have no opportunity to independently test the product and learn of the falsity of Defendants' representations, according to the complaint.

Vulcan maintains an excellent reputation among customers for high quality products and superior service. Reviews.io, an independent customer reviews aggregation site, reports that Vulcan's average rating among more than 3,400 customer reviews is 4.8 out of five stars, and that 96% of reviewers recommend Vulcan's products.

The TALOS product launched in December 2023 and has been well-received by customers and reviewers. Garage Gyms, an independent review site, published a thorough review on August 31, 2025, that concluded: "The TALOS is an exceptional piece of equipment – checking a ridiculous amount of boxes on just about any garage gym checklist," and is "well thought-out in terms of what features to include, what materials to use in order to provide both safety and longevity, and how to price it to remain extremely competitive...."

Legal claims and remedies sought

The complaint advances four claims for relief. The first alleges false and misleading representations of fact under Section 43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B), arguing that Defendants' video constitutes commercial advertising or promotion because Defendants were acting to advance their commercial relationships with Vulcan's direct competitors.

The second claim alleges defamation, stating that falsehoods communicated by Defendants tend to impeach Vulcan in its trade or profession and otherwise tend to subject Vulcan to ridicule, contempt or disgrace. The complaint alleges Defendants knowingly published false and defamatory statements to the general public, and knew the statements were false or failed to exercise ordinary care to determine whether they were false.

The third claim alleges unfair and deceptive trade practices under N.C. Gen. Stat. §75-1.1, asserting that Defendants' conduct was and is in commerce and affects commerce in the State of North Carolina. The fourth claim alleges common law unfair competition, arguing that Defendants' video constitutes unfair competition in violation of North Carolina common law by falsely disparaging Vulcan and its product to advance Defendants' commercial relationships with Vulcan's direct competitors.

Vulcan seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining Defendants from further publication or distribution of their video on any platform or medium. The company requests that Defendants be ordered to publish a retraction on each platform where the video has been published and to undertake or compensate Vulcan for undertaking corrective advertising reasonably calculated to attempt to mitigate the harm.

For monetary relief, Vulcan seeks actual damages sustained by reason of Defendants' violations of the Lanham Act, to be trebled pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117. For defamation, Vulcan seeks damages in amounts to be proved at trial, or alternatively presumed damages as allowed by law, together with punitive damages pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 1D-15. For unfair and deceptive trade practices, Vulcan seeks actual damages to be trebled pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 75-16. For common law unfair competition, Vulcan seeks damages together with punitive damages.

The complaint also seeks attorney fees under both the Lanham Act and North Carolina's unfair and deceptive trade practices statute. The case establishes federal jurisdiction based on the matter in controversy exceeding $75,000 exclusive of interest and costs, with complete diversity of citizenship between the parties.

Vulcan through its attorney made written request to Defendants that they withdraw and correct the false representations in their video, but Defendants have failed to do so. The conduct is ongoing, and the complaint alleges it will cause continuing, escalating and irreparable damage to Vulcan's business and reputation unless and until Defendants are enjoined by the Court.

The complaint demands trial by jury of all issues properly so triable. The case was filed by Rodrick J. Enns of Enns & Archer LLP in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, representing Advanced Fitness Concepts, Inc. d/b/a Vulcan Strength Training Systems.

Implications for influencer marketing

The case arrives as marketing professionals face increasing scrutiny over disclosure practices. In the category of affiliates and partners, which includes social media influencers, the share of revenue reached 20.3% on Cyber Monday 2024, up 6.8% year-over-year. Data shows that influencers convert shoppers 6 times more than social media overall.

The tension between authentic reviews and affiliate revenue relationships has intensified as influencer 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 percentage point lift in brand awareness goals compared to traditional marketing approaches.

The fitness equipment review ecosystem operates within broader regulatory frameworks governing advertising transparency and consumer protection. The Federal Trade Commission has expanded disclosure requirements across digital advertising sectors, though fitness equipment reviews targeting adult audiences fall outside specialized children's privacy protections.

Transparency requirements continue expanding across advertising platforms, with the Media Rating Council releasing comprehensive standards in September 2025. These developments reflect industry-wide efforts to address trust deficits in digital advertising, though most focus on programmatic auction mechanics rather than influencer content.

The Vulcan lawsuit differs from recent FTC enforcement actions targeting deceptive business opportunity schemes, where false earnings claims and fake testimonials formed the basis of fraud allegations. The fitness equipment case instead centers on product review accuracy and the extent to which negative reviews constitute protected opinion versus actionable false statements of fact.

Digital advertising fraud schemes have drawn regulatory attention, with federal prosecutors charging advertising executives who exploited mobile advertising transactions to orchestrate accounting fraud. The Vulcan case presents different dynamics, focusing on content creator speech rather than financial statement manipulation.

The lawsuit's outcome may influence how content creators balance affiliate relationships with critical product assessments. Defendants maintain a website stating their business "strives to provide in-depth and honest reviews on well tested items." They also maintain a presence on Patreon, an online monetization platform that allows content creators to run subscription services, and realize advertising revenue when their reviews are viewed on YouTube, Instagram, and other platforms.

The case will test whether Defendants' statements constitute protected opinion under First Amendment principles or actionable false statements of fact. Courts generally protect vigorous criticism and subjective opinions about products, but not false statements of verifiable fact that damage business reputation. The complaint's detailed factual allegations attempt to characterize many of Gluck's statements as objectively verifiable claims rather than protected opinion.

Product review defamation cases require plaintiffs to demonstrate that challenged statements are false statements of fact rather than protected opinion, that defendants made the statements with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth, and that the statements caused actual damage to the plaintiff's business. The complaint attempts to meet these elements through detailed technical specifications contradicting Gluck's claims and evidence of revenue impact from the negative review.

The case also raises questions about the extent to which affiliate relationships create conflicts of interest that should be disclosed to audiences. Gluck's pinned comment asserting he doesn't "work for these companies" while deriving revenue from affiliate relationships with competing manufacturers may become central to the litigation. The complaint characterizes this representation as false and misleading, arguing it creates a false impression of independence while Defendants actually maintain substantial financial incentives favoring certain manufacturers.

Timeline

• December 2023: Vulcan launches TALOS All-In-One Gym product
• July 2024: Gluck begins requesting TALOS product for review
• October 2024: Gluck makes renewed request for TALOS review product
• January 2025: Gluck makes third request for TALOS review product
• May 2025: Gluck makes fourth request for TALOS review product
• June 2025: Vulcan ships TALOS product valued at over $4,000 to Defendants at no charge
• Mid-August 2025: Vulcan offers to retrieve product due to parts delay; Gluck agrees
• Late August 2025: Defendants post "60-second gym tour" video calling TALOS "a pile of shit"
• Early September 2025: Defendants post twelve-minute video titled "I just killed the Vulcan Talos (& maybe 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 files lawsuit in Western District of North Carolina
• November 4, 2025: Attorney Rob Freund shares case details on social media

Summary

Who: Advanced Fitness Concepts, Inc. d/b/a Vulcan Strength Training Systems, a veteran-owned North Carolina fitness equipment manufacturer, filed suit against Adrian Gluck and Gluck's Gym LLC, a Connecticut-based fitness equipment review operation that produces video reviews on YouTube, Patreon, and other platforms.

What: Federal lawsuit alleging defamation, violations of the Lanham Act for false advertising, unfair and deceptive trade practices under North Carolina law, and common law unfair competition, based on a video review titled "This Is The Worst Product I've Ever Reviewed..." that Vulcan characterizes as containing objectively false technical claims and gratuitously disparaging statements about the company's TALOS All-In-One Gym product.

When: The complaint was filed on October 31, 2025, in the Western District of North Carolina under case number 3:25-cv-878, following video publication in early September 2025 and preceding communications between the parties extending back to June 2025 when Vulcan shipped the product to Defendants for review.

Where: The case was filed in the Charlotte Division of the Western District of North Carolina, where Vulcan maintains its principal place of business and warehouse, and where the allegedly defamatory video was published and viewed by residents of the district, causing damage to Vulcan's business in that location.

Why: Vulcan alleges Defendants fabricated a negative review of a small manufacturer's product to cultivate a reputation for fearless reviews while protecting affiliate revenue relationships with large manufacturers like Rogue Fitness and Rep Fitness, resulting in lost sales, impaired reputation, and irreparable damage to customer goodwill, with the video accumulating over 70,000 views and more than 500 comments that influenced potential customers against purchasing Vulcan's product.