Youtuber 'Agent Ratliff' Faces Federal Lawsuit Over Baton Rouge Prank

A Prank Gone Wrong?

Baton Rouge's Holmes Building Materials and supervisor Derek Jones have taken YouTuber Calimar White, better known online as 'Agent Ratliff,' to federal court over a viral prank video. The clip, filmed on August 1, 2025, features White arriving at their office under the guise of 'Agent Ratliff' from the self-proclaimed 'OCDA.' This video, which has racked up over 100,000 views, reportedly left employees believing he was affiliated with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

In their lawsuit, the company accuses White and his crew of defaming their reputation and falsely imprisoning staff by refusing to leave. Also listed in the suit are charges of assault and battery, allegedly for blowing cigarette smoke. The plaintiffs demand that the video be removed, having sent a formal demand on September 25.

The Legal Battle Begins

The legal proceedings, filed as Holmes Building Materials, Inc., et al. v. White, et al., are now in federal court as of October 2025. While the final outcomes are pending, central questions involve whether White's actions could lead a reasonable person to believe he represented a government authority and if the prank caused reputational damage, common considerations in parody-related cases.

White has taken to social media to defend himself, urging legal experts in Louisiana to reach out. He insists he never implied he was from OSHA, clarifying that the 'OCDA' is merely a fictional entity he created to relay employee complaints to managers.

“I never claimed to be from any federal agency,” White states. “OCDA is just my own thing.”

Social Media Weighs In

The incident has sparked a lively debate online, splitting opinions among viewers. Some argue that White’s video is pure comedic satire, while others feel his approach overstepped boundaries, particularly within a private workplace setting.

This legal drama highlights the ongoing tension between influencer 'gotcha' content and its potential real-world repercussions. As the case develops, it may set a precedent for how courts handle the fine line between parody and impersonation.

What's at Stake?

As influencer culture continues to blur the lines between satire and reality, this lawsuit could have implications for creators navigating similar waters. The outcome may influence how future 'prank' videos are perceived and the legal boundaries of comedic content.