YouTuber did not promise to make videos in exchange for gold-panning equipment, B.C. tribunal rules

Small pieces of gold are seen in a pan in this stock photo. (Credit: Shutterstock)

A dispute about how many YouTube videos a man agreed to make in exchange for free gold panning equipment was settled by B.C.'s Civil Resolution Tribunal Wednesday.

Terrabend Equipment Ltd. filed the claim against Dan Hurd, whose prospecting and mining channel currently has over one million subscribers.

The company first reached out to Hurd about the possibility of featuring its products in his videos in May of 2018, and sent the equipment in June of the following year, the tribunal decision says.

"Terrabend says the parties’ verbal agreement was that Mr. Hurd could keep the equipment if he made three videos of him using it. Terrabend says Mr. Hurd did not complete three videos," tribunal vice-chair Shelley Lopez wrote, before summarizing the facts that were not in dispute.

Both parties acknowledged that Hurd was not charged for the equipment, including a machine and a "30-foot hose," the tribunal decision said. They also agreed that two videos were posted.

Terrabend argued that because Hurd did not make three videos and did not return the equipment, he should be required to pay the company 50 per cent of its value – which the tribunal was told was $965. Hurd, for his part, argued that he never agreed to make a specific number of videos

"Mr. Hurd says many people send him equipment with the hope of him including it on his YouTube channel. Mr. Hurd says he only gave a standard offer of including the product in videos if he liked the product," Lopez wrote.

In addition, Hurd argued that the two videos he posted – which got 122,057 and 237,249 views, respectively- were equivalent to $18,000-worth of free advertising. He also said he "disposed of" the products because he found out it was "illegal” to use under B.C. mining regulations, according to the tribunal's decision, which did not make a finding on that particular claim.

Moore dismissed the company's claim on several grounds.

She said there was no evidence of an agreement between the parties – specifically, that there was no mention of the number of videos or the value of the equipment in any of the correspondence submitted to the tribunal.

"I find it most likely that Terrabend provided Mr. Hurd with the equipment without conditions, other than the hope Mr. Hurd’s use of the equipment would generate advertising," Lopez wrote.

She also said Terrabend's claim was likely not brought in time to be adjudicated, noting there is a two-year limitation period during which a claim can be brought.

Finally, Lopez said, the company's failure to submit any evidence supporting its claim of the equipment's value would have been enough to warrant dismissal in and of itself.

"While Terrabend asserts the equipment was worth over $1,900 (and claims 50 per cent or $965), it submitted no evidence at all, such as a description, valuation, or prior invoices for similar equipment," Lopez concluded.