Fireclean LLC Sues Andrew Tuohy and Everett Baker for Defamation in Federal Court

[UWone77]

And.... it's getting ugly. From Solider Systems: http://soldiersystems.net/2016/03/31...federal-court/

Last September, social media was ablaze with multiple versions of a common theme, “Fireclean lubricant is Crisco”. The source of this buzz was an article on Vuurwapen blog by Andrew Tuohy, entitled “INFRARED SPECTROSCOPY OF FIRECLEAN AND CRISCO OILS” where he claimed to have had samples of Fireclean tested in order to determine if it was Crisco. At the time of the article, I was publicly critical of Tuohy’s methodology, relying on anonymous sources for lab tests.



The content was so popular it even spawned a second round of articles by Tuohy as well as blogger Everett Baker who claims to have conducted testing of his own that verified Tuohy’s assertions. To double down, Tuohy wrote an article where he claimed that a demonstration video of Fireclean by tactical trainer Larry Vickers was fraudulent. Interestingly, Tuohy initially published this article as “WHERE THERE’S SMOKE, THERE’S LIAR” but later changed it to “SEVERE PROBLEMS WITH VICKERS TACTICAL FIRECLEAN VIDEO”.

At the time, lots of people were quite entertained by the shenanigans. But not everyone was laughing. While most have moved on from the incident, Fireclean has not. In fact, last week they filed the first, in what we understand will be series of federal lawsuits, against Andrew Tuohy and Everett Baker. Suits against others are said to follow. According to this suit, Fireclean has suffered losses of $25,000 per month in sales since the round of articles. Seeing how they are in Northern Virginia, Fireclean has turned to Federal Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the original ‘Rocket Docket’, for relief. Andrew Tuohy hails from Arizona and Everett Baker is from New Hampshire, according to his blog but Fireclean makes their case early on in the suit for a Virginia venue.

At the heart of this issue is whether the bloggers’ posts are protected by the First Amendment or if their actions were intentionally misleading. Fireclean alleges multiple counts of defamation against Tuohy and a single count against Baker as well as violation of the Virginia Business Conspiracy Act and Common Law Conspiracy. They are demanding a jury trial and compensatory damages, presumed damages for defamation, punitive damages in addition to court costs and attorney’s fees.

You can read the entire, 209 page suit here: Fireclean LLC v Tuohy and Baker. It’s quite extensive and in the document you can see that Fireclean does exactly what Tuohy and Baker didn’t, which was use a well known laboratory to analyze the product. Rather than rely on anonymous testing or tests performed by a college student, Fireclean obtained the services of Petro-Lubricant Testing Laboratories. Their testing is part of the suit, in exhibit R.

Whichever way this suit goes, it is one to watch because it is not only an attempt to hold firearms bloggers responsible for their content, but that it could have far reaching effects for blogging writ large as well as other social media content.

In closing, I would like to disclose that Vickers Tactical, who is not a party to this suit, but is mentioned, is an advertiser on SSD. While, Larry Vickers has endorsed Fireclean in the past, Fireclean is in no way associated with SSD.

Lawsuit can be read here: http://soldiersystems.net/blog1/wp-c...d_document.pdf

[JGifford]

Wow.

It looks like FIREClean's "Stand by for response" type responses were not pantywaist begrudging admissions of being unable to defend their product. I read the .pdf, and it looks rather...comprehensive.

[DUX]

Absolute Madness. What people fight over boggles my mind. There are a million different lubes out there that work great. Is the market so huge that fighting over this stuff is truly profitable, or is it really about cult of personality brand supremacy? Btw, WD-40 or 3 in One oil works great in a pinch. Heck, you can reduce onions in a pan and use that as great lube. "My onion residue is better than yours!" LOL!

Errata: I personally have decided to "run" straight CRISCO in my AR's now, because "there is no ""Elite"", there are only people, and ego is deadly dangerous."

[alamo5000]

Here is my take on all this...

The people from Fireclean created some product, how long it took or whatever is out there... but more importantly they created a following which in many ways is a much harder task to do. As everyone here knows there are hundreds of options for cleaning and lubing a firearm...

The amount of marketing, including man hours of effort up to that point had been paying off quite well. Whether or not you use Fireclean or not, you're talking about someone's livelihood and something they probably spent substantial amounts of effort building up.

If they can (and I am pretty sure they certainly can) show material harm to their sales because of this internet claim thing going all over the place.... IE last year we sold X and this year we decreased 40%... I think they will clean the floor with the people who started the whole thing online.

That's just my opinion but I think a jury will eventually see it and the Fireclean people will prevail. Whether or not they get money out of it or not is a whole different subject.

[DUX]

@alamo5000: I agree with your assessment from a marketing perspective. That said, this is coming off like a David & Goliath story in the court of Public Opinion. Vickers and crew will probably win the battle, but they will lose the war. I know I'll never buy anything he's associated with out of pure principle. Between this and the "Don't you know who I am" deal with Ruger, it's just total brand armageddon in my opinion. The entire industry is blown-out as I see it. For every "Special Forces Legend" out there hawking products and theories about winning knife-fights-in-telephone-booths, there are a lot of giant shoulders they're standing on that remain professionally quiet and humble. I'm absolutely sick of it all, and a great number of others out there are as well. There was a better way to handle this in my opinion, but what I think doesn't matter. What I spend my money on does and I know who I'm not going to do business with.

[JGifford]

All this said...has ANYONE seen a forum this was posted on where Fireclean seemed to improve their reputation and brand integrity due to it? I have not. I honestly feel like they have shot themselves in the dick by doing this, unless Andrew Touhy has a ton more "ability to pay" than he appears.

[DUX]

Larry Vickers was a wet-behind-the-ears young buck once upon a time. The people who taught him everything he knows are still alive. I don't hear about them engaging in law suits. Just sayin'.

[rob_s]

Here is my take on all this...

The people from Fireclean created some product, how long it took or whatever is out there... but more importantly they created a following which in many ways is a much harder task to do. As everyone here knows there are hundreds of options for cleaning and lubing a firearm...

The amount of marketing, including man hours of effort up to that point had been paying off quite well. Whether or not you use Fireclean or not, you're talking about someone's livelihood and something they probably spent substantial amounts of effort building up.

If they can (and I am pretty sure they certainly can) show material harm to their sales because of this internet claim thing going all over the place.... IE last year we sold X and this year we decreased 40%... I think they will clean the floor with the people who started the whole thing online.

That's just my opinion but I think a jury will eventually see it and the Fireclean people will prevail. Whether or not they get money out of it or not is a whole different subject.

I don't think it works exactly like that.

I think they first will have to identify the claims that Andrew made that they say are un-true, and then PROVE that they are untrue. Once that's all proved, it will then turn into proving that there was material damage, and assessing who is responsible for what percentage of said damage. Then, if they get a judgment, they'll have to actually collect. which is usually the hardest part.

[rob_s]

All this said...has ANYONE seen a forum this was posted on where Fireclean seemed to improve their reputation and brand integrity due to it? I have not. I honestly feel like they have shot themselves in the dick by doing this, unless Andrew Touhy has a ton more "ability to pay" than he appears.

The comments on SSD in the first link appear to be largely anti-Andrew.

That said, there are a LOT of people in the shooting world that carry around a LOT of butthurt about "bloggers" and "youtubers" and "self-proclaimed SMEs" and "internet celebrities" etc. This is as much a chance for them to air their achy asses as it has anything to do with the topic at hand.

[JGifford]

The comments on SSD in the first link appear to be largely anti-Andrew.

That said, there are a LOT of people in the shooting world that carry around a LOT of butthurt about "bloggers" and "youtubers" and "self-proclaimed SMEs" and "internet celebrities" etc. This is as much a chance for them to air their achy asses as it has anything to do with the topic at hand.

I think in the end, Fireclean has shot themselves in the dick. I doubt they GAIN any customers from this, and I doubt Andrew gets 3.37M USD via GoFundMe.com. They aren't going to increase revenue or gain compensation for damages of any import. However, they may well have roped themselves into providing a lot more data to public purview than they ever wanted to.

Carrying around and giving vent to butthurt is one thing, but once you drag a federal court into it, you're no longer playing for pogs and marbles. This case is going to set some legal precetence, imo

[SINNER]

No legal precedence will be set. If the guy made unsubstantiated claims on his blog that are proven to be incorrect ( which sounds very likely considering he is basing his comments off some free college lab "testing") he will lose. The court of public opinion has no bearing on the legality of the case.

The legal precedence for this case was established decades ago when Bose sued Consumer reports for saying their loudspeakers performed poorly. CR got trounced in court by Bose's experts and it changed the face of reviewing products.

[DeviantLogic]

One side has a guy who thinks frog lube is the same as grease used for roller coasters. The other side is trying to prove to the world their product isn't crisco. I'd love to bitch slap both of em.

[JGifford]

One side has a guy who thinks frog lube is the same as grease used for roller coasters. The other side is trying to prove to the world their product isn't crisco. I'd love to bitch slap both of em.

I'd rather my tax dollars go to this than welfare, personally.

[fledge]

The funny thing to me is that now my tax dollars pay the fed to endure the same pain the gun community has endured for years: a lube thread.

[JGifford]

The funny thing to me is that now my tax dollars pay the fed to endure the same pain the gun community has endured for years: a lube thread.

Hah!