Fitness YouTuber fights back against equipment maker's defamation lawsuit

Connecticut-based fitness equipment reviewer Adrian Gluck published a detailed response on November 20, 2025, defending his negative review of Vulcan Strength Training Systems' TALOS All-In-One Gym after the North Carolina manufacturer filed a federal defamation lawsuit against him on October 31. The 17-minute video response, titled "I Got Sued...," systematically addresses allegations in the complaint while maintaining that every statement in his original review represents truthful assessment based on more than three months of testing.

Gluck operates Gluck's Gym, a family-run YouTube channel with 91,700 subscribers that produces fitness equipment reviews. The lawsuit filed in the Western District of North Carolina under case number 3:25-cv-878 alleges defamation, violations of the Lanham Act for false advertising, and unfair competition after Gluck published a September 2025 video calling the $4,000 TALOS product "the worst product I've ever reviewed."

YouTuber's defense emphasizes documentation and communication

Gluck stated he had the rack system for more than three months before publishing his review, which he characterized as "a more than fair amount of time to test it and to communicate with Vulcan." According to his response, approximately 70 emails were exchanged between his team and Vulcan, along with several phone calls. "I believe I did my due diligence," Gluck stated in his response video.

The reviewer described the lawsuit as "a bullying tactic" and "intimidation," noting that Gluck's Gym operates as a small family business consisting of himself, his wife, and an editor. "We do not have the money, time, and resources to fight lawsuits," he stated. The channel established a GoFundMe campaign to help cover legal expenses after paying a retainer to an attorney.

Gluck explained his decision to fight the lawsuit rather than retract his review centers on broader implications for consumer protection and reviewer independence. "This could have huge ramifications not only on consumers, but reviewers, too," he stated. "If companies can just threaten or sue people for making honest reviews, then nobody's going to make them because they'll fear the repercussions."

Timeline disputes over product request and review arrangement

The complaint alleges Gluck "persuaded" Vulcan and "persisted in making renewed requests" to receive the TALOS for review. Gluck disputed this characterization, providing email evidence showing extensive back-and-forth communication initiated by Vulcan's CEO in July 2024.

According to Gluck's timeline, the CEO of Vulcan reached out about reviewing the TALOS and Forge rack systems. The product took months to arrive due to stock issues and space constraints in Gluck's gym. "I had trouble figuring out what to order because as I said to Vulcan, the website is difficult to navigate and understand," Gluck stated.

Email correspondence shown in the response video demonstrates that Vulcan asked about including and reviewing additional items beyond the TALOS. "In my opinion, there was a mutual interest in the review," Gluck stated. The arrangement included no written contract and no money exchanged, with the rack to be returned to Vulcan after the review.

Assembly problems documented from initial installation

Gluck's most detailed defense addresses assembly issues that formed a central complaint in his original review. When the rack arrived in June 2025, his team immediately communicated problems to Vulcan, including inadequate directions, cables that were not smooth, loose cables, and extra and missing parts.

The TALOS ships with schematic pages printed on 8.5-by-11-inch paper consisting of four steps. "The schematics are just these pictures I'm showing you right now," Gluck stated, displaying the minimal documentation in his response video. He contrasted this with Rep Fitness's Aries 2.0, which has similar functionality and provides instructions with approximately 50 steps that include notations, callouts, and high-resolution detail.

Vulcan later emailed additional assembly instructions consisting of a six-page step-by-step guide with text and pictures showing cable routing for a six-post rack. Gluck purchased a four-post configuration. "I did not ever admit to missing the directions the first time," he stated. "I said, I don't see an email from his employee, and Cyrus, the CEO, later admitted his employee never sent them to me."

The complaint alleges Gluck falsely claimed the rear crossmember could only be installed one way. Gluck showed the first schematic step in his response, zooming in on the crossmember illustration. "I also don't see any mention of its orientation on the step-by-step directions, but with that part being 3x3, it has symmetrical mounts and can definitely be installed upside down," he stated.

Cable tension problems central to review criticisms

Multiple points in Vulcan's complaint address Gluck's statements about cable tension and pulley systems. The manufacturer alleges these claims are objectively false and misleading. Gluck provided detailed technical rebuttals to each allegation.

Regarding pulley grooves, Gluck noted that Vulcan uses several different-sized pulleys in different locations throughout the TALOS. "They're not refuting the portion of that same statement, that rant they call it, on how I thought some of those pulleys were too small for the diameter of the cable they were using," he stated.

The complaint characterizes as false Gluck's assertion that users cannot adjust cable tension from the trolley. Gluck clarified this misrepresents his actual criticism. "In the clip they're referring to, I'm talking about how I have two different cable lengths on the left and right side of the low row," he stated. "Both sides are too loose. But it's the unevenness I'm talking about."

The TALOS trolley system allows three tension positions. "Yes, you can adjust the cable tension on Vulcan's trolley. It can be set to one of three positions, but if the cables are loose, no matter how you adjust them, that tension system doesn't work," Gluck stated. "All I can do is make them looser."

Vulcan acknowledged in communications that cables have a tolerance of approximately 1.75 inches and stated that the majority of customers do not consider an inch or so of slack a problem. "To me that shows they know about the slack. It's intended and they don't think it's a problem," Gluck stated.

During a July phone conversation, Vulcan's CEO admitted he did not know how companies like Rogue Fitness and Rep Fitness implemented trolley cable tension systems with adjustment bolts. "The CEO said as a small company, they weren't able to research or purchase other systems to find out," Gluck stated, noting he informed the CEO that Rogue and Rep's directions are hosted publicly online.

Why the TALOS is problematic according to Gluck's original review

Gluck's September 2025 review video, which accumulated over 99,000 views, provided extensive technical criticism that forms the basis of Vulcan's lawsuit. The 12-minute video opens with an image of the TALOS in a flaming trash bin.

"I'm going to start this one off with an apology," Gluck stated in the original review. "While I appreciate Vulcan sending us the Talos for review, I'm sorry. If I paid well over four grand for this thing, I'd be pissed."

Assembly experience characterized as worst in years of testing

Gluck stated he has built dozens of similar systems and works on equipment assembly almost every week. "This might be the worst experience I've had," he stated in the review. The assembly process took days compared to four hours for Rogue's more complex Rhino trainer.

"If you take a look at these sick instructions, everything's done in four easy steps except, you know, step two where it's actually like 35 steps in one," Gluck stated. He documented installing the bottom crossmember upside down with no indication in directions about proper orientation.

The hardware consists of multiple sizes all within 5 millimeters of each other. "They're caked in grease, so there's just grease and oil on everything here," Gluck stated. "I basically resulted in building it by looking at the low res grainy ass pictures they've got on their website."

Cable friction creates unresponsive feel

After spending days on assembly and another half day making adjustments, Gluck demonstrated significant cable slack in the original review. "We dancing with that cable slack," he stated while showing the loose cables on camera.

The review detailed how the TALOS uses progressively smaller pulleys from bottom to top. "These front pulleys, they're big, they work well enough, the bearings are quality. Then you go straight up to a smaller pulley and it actually ends up at the top and the bottom. So no matter how you pull with an even smaller pulley," Gluck stated.

"You're trying to route these big, thick, stiff cables through progressively smaller pulleys, it introduces a lot of friction," he continued. "On a lot of these pulleys, the groove is too small for this thick cable. Again, more friction. So, it's not responsive."

The TALOS features two 300-pound weight stacks with a 2:1 ratio on the functional trainer. "If I set my weight to 33 lb, because why would you sell a weight stack in the United States in pounds? Just do it in kilos. 33 lb. I've got a 16 12 lb starting weight and it feels like 40 lb," Gluck stated.

Low row design creates safety concerns

Gluck characterized the low row as "the world's lowest low row" with an attachment point positioned at an awkward 90-degree angle. "Super awkward, but let me just pop an attachment in here for you, and you'll see how fun this is," he stated while struggling to insert attachments.

The review showed how users must extend a telescoping plate to achieve range of motion during exercises. "Now got those big 300 lb stacks. I've got 300 lb to work with. It's a 2:1 ratio. You combine it ends up being 1:1. You get 300 lb. This is great," Gluck stated. "And when I'm done in my set, I just break my own feet because the only way I can get range of motion, this weight is now sitting on the bones of my feet right now, is to telescope this thing out."

"I can't adjust the cable tension on the trolley like you can do with literally every other cable machine out there," Gluck stated, demonstrating uneven cable lengths on the left and right sides of the low row.

Lat pull-down suffers from design compromises

The lat pull-down function includes dual pull points that can attach in two configurations. "Vulcan gives you this plate that you can strap up here, aka like reps Aries 1.0," Gluck stated. Alternatively, users can attach an aluminum bar.

Gluck demonstrated difficulty clipping the attachments: "We clip one in. Clip the other side. Was super good. No problems there." The statement dripped with sarcasm as the video showed him struggling with the mechanism.

The lat bar holder does not fit properly in its designated space. "I don't know why. Why wouldn't you design one where it fits in the space it's supposed to fit?" Gluck stated while showing the misaligned holder.

Rack specifications limit compatibility

The TALOS uses 3x3-inch uprights with one-inch holes, but hole spacing varies throughout the rack. Some sections use Sorinex-style hole spacing where holes align vertically, preventing attachments from positioning close to each other because they share the same hole.

Upper sections feature half-inch holes rather than the standard 5/8-inch holes used on most 3x3 racks. "Why would you do 5/8? Well, every 3x3 rack is 1 in or 5/8. So, at least if they switch there, you could kind of make an argument, but they didn't," Gluck stated.

The crossmembers lack vertical holes, eliminating versatility for band pegs and storage solutions. "I can't use band pegs on this thing. If I had a six post rack, I can't attach anything here. I can't store anything here like I do on my other racks," Gluck stated.

Comparison with competitor products

Gluck noted that Vulcan launched the TALOS after Rep Fitness introduced the Aries 1.0, which pioneered the all-in-one rack concept for home gyms with 90-degree rotated weight stacks. "The problem with that is it cluttered the back of the rack, so you couldn't do incline press back here," Gluck stated.

"Vulcan saw that, rotated the stacks backward, giving you space," he continued, crediting Vulcan with this design improvement. However, Rep Fitness subsequently released the Aries 2.0, which evolved numerous elements while Vulcan continued selling the TALOS with its original design.

"If I was one of the people that spent my money on this, I'd be pissed if I spent about $4500 on this build," Gluck stated. "I could have gotten a similarly built Rep Aries 2.0 for that same amount of money. And that rack is multiple times what this thing is."

Affiliate relationship allegations disputed

Vulcan's complaint alleges Gluck fabricated a negative review of a small manufacturer to cultivate a reputation for fearless reviews while protecting affiliate revenue from large manufacturers like Rogue Fitness and Rep Fitness. Gluck addressed this allegation with specific financial details and channel history.

Vulcan's affiliate percentage for Gluck's channel was set at 12 percent, which Gluck stated represents his highest affiliate percentage. The TALOS valued at over $4,000 would generate approximately $500 per affiliate sale. Rep Fitness's affiliate percentage stands at 5 percent, meaning a similarly priced product would pay "well under half that." Rogue Fitness's affiliate percentage is even lower than Rep's.

Gluck cited his channel's history of criticizing major manufacturers. "We've been harsh on Titan Fitness many times and they're another large manufacturer," he stated. He noted his critical review of Fringe Sports DNA 1.0 when other reviewers praised it, leading Fringe to address the criticisms and release an improved 2.0 version.

The channel has published positive reviews of numerous small manufacturers. "We really liked Maxim's rack, which was a similarly priced all-in-one style rack," Gluck stated. That video was published within a month of the TALOS video. "We were the first to cover dialed motion and at the time they were relatively unknown in the space."

Gluck revealed that after Vulcan retrieved the TALOS from his home, the company sent the same rack to another reviewer. "Literally the same exact rack I reviewed went from my house to that reviewers," he stated. That reviewer, who had no knowledge Gluck's review was forthcoming, also delivered an unfavorable assessment after independent testing.

Decision to publish despite ongoing communications

Vulcan contacted Gluck in mid-August 2025 stating that upgraded parts would be delayed and offered to retrieve the product. Gluck agreed to the retrieval, but nobody confirmed when it would occur. In late August, a contractor reached out to Gluck saying he was coming to collect the rack but was having trouble contacting Vulcan.

"I was a bit taken back by that, which is why I emailed them saying I'd have appreciated a heads up before sending someone to my house," Gluck stated. After this incident and considering that Vulcan had been selling the rack since 2023, Gluck decided to publish the review.

"I felt like we had played email and phone tag long enough," he stated. "This didn't seem to be going anywhere and the fixes we had discussed wouldn't have addressed many of the other issues my review mentions that their complaint doesn't, like how the Lo can apply pressure to your feet, which could injure you."

Gluck characterized Vulcan's proposed solutions as "band-aid fixes that didn't address major problems" and concluded "the Talos was an outdated design that had too many flaws." He stated that publishing the review represented "the right thing to do" from a moral perspective despite knowing the potential repercussions.

Implications for reviewer independence and consumer protection

The case tests fundamental questions about product review speech protections in influencer marketing. Fitness equipment maker files defamation suit against YouTuber notes the lawsuit seeks to characterize Gluck's statements as objectively false claims rather than protected opinion.

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 technical allegations attempt to establish that Gluck's review contains demonstrably false factual claims rather than legitimate critical opinion.

The tension between affiliate revenue relationships and authentic reviews has intensified as influencer marketing matures. Data shows that influencers convert shoppers six times more than social media overall, with the share of revenue from affiliates and partners reaching 20.3 percent on Cyber Monday 2024, up 6.8 percent year-over-year.

Recent regulatory developments have expanded disclosure requirements across digital advertising sectors. FTC to combat fake reviews and testimonials detailed new rules prohibiting fake reviews, undisclosed paid testimonials, and other deceptive practices involving consumer feedback. The FTC estimates these rules could save consumers between $6.64 billion and $17.52 billion annually through better-informed purchasing decisions.

The Vulcan case differs from recent FTC enforcement actions targeting deceptive business practices. FTC settles with e-commerce scheme operators in massive fraud case involved false earnings claims and systematic suppression of negative reviews through legal threats. The fitness equipment dispute instead centers on whether negative technical assessments constitute protected criticism or actionable defamation.

Several recent cases involving AI-generated content have established new precedent for technology company liability. Minnesota solar company sues Google over false AI-generated claims and Activist sues Google over AI-generated false claims in second tech lawsuit demonstrate how defamation law applies to algorithmically generated content.

International developments show how review systems face manipulation threats. German businesses systematically delete critical reviews using EU Digital Services Act documented widespread abuse of reporting mechanisms to remove unfavorable business reviews through false defamation claims.

Timeline

• July 2024: Vulcan CEO reaches out to Gluck about reviewing TALOS and Forge rack systems
• June 2025: Vulcan ships TALOS valued at over $4,000 to Gluck at no charge; assembly problems immediately communicated
• July 2025: Phone conversation between Gluck and Vulcan CEO discussing rack issues and cable tension systems
• Mid-August 2025: Vulcan offers to retrieve product due to parts delay; Gluck agrees
• Late August 2025: Contractor contacts Gluck about retrieving rack; Gluck posts "60-second gym tour" video calling TALOS "a pile of shit"
• September 2025: Gluck publishes 12-minute video titled "This Is The Worst Product I've Ever Reviewed..." on YouTube; video accumulates over 99,000 views
• October 31, 2025: Vulcan files lawsuit in Western District of North Carolina under case number 3:25-cv-878
• November 20, 2025: Gluck publishes 17-minute response video titled "I Got Sued..." defending review and establishing GoFundMe for legal expenses

Summary

Who: Adrian Gluck and Gluck's Gym LLC, a Connecticut-based family-run fitness equipment review channel with 91,700 YouTube subscribers, face federal lawsuit from Advanced Fitness Concepts d/b/a Vulcan Strength Training Systems, a veteran-owned North Carolina fitness equipment manufacturer.

What: Defamation lawsuit alleging false and misleading statements in product review video, with Gluck defending his negative assessment of the TALOS All-In-One Gym based on documented assembly problems, cable tension issues, design flaws, and safety concerns discovered during more than three months of testing with extensive communication with the manufacturer.

When: Lawsuit filed October 31, 2025, following September 2025 video publication and months of product testing and communications extending back to June 2025 when Vulcan shipped the $4,000 rack system; Gluck published detailed response November 20, 2025.

Where: Case filed in Charlotte Division of Western District of North Carolina where Vulcan maintains operations; Gluck operates from Connecticut; dispute centers on video content distributed globally via YouTube, Patreon, and Instagram platforms.

Why: Gluck maintains he published truthful criticism to serve consumer interests after determining the TALOS had fundamental design flaws that would not be adequately addressed by proposed fixes; Vulcan alleges fabricated negative review designed to protect affiliate revenue relationships with competing manufacturers while cultivating reputation for fearless reviews.