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.”