If a company’s first reaction to a flaw is to sue instead of fix it, the problem probably goes beyond the lock itself. A real security company would appreciate someone pointing out a weakness rather than trying to take the video down. That kind of openness would actually make people trust them more.
The weird thing is, they actually had someone competent dealing with the issue:
> The strange thing about the whole situation is that Proven actually knew how to respond constructively to the first McNally video. Its own response video opened with a bit of humor (the presenter drinks a can of Liquid Death), acknowledged the issue (“we’ve had a little bit of controversy in the last couple days”), and made clear that Proven could handle criticism (“we aren’t afraid of a little bit of feedback”).
> The video went on to show how their locks work and provided some context on shimming attacks and their likelihood of real-world use. It ended by showing how users concerned about shimming attacks could choose more expensive but more secure lock cores that should resist the technique.
Sounds to me like someone professional in the company with a cooler head was on this and was handling it well, but someone else higher up got angry and aggressive and decided that revenge was more important.