CONFIRMEDfour dated statements, each held verbatim, archived, or filed by the company itself
BAM’s May 21 statement as the company’s own Exhibit G in case 260402353; the June 4 statement with a same-day Internet Archive capture; the June 13 media statement as carried in print; the July 10 statement, hosted on this site. The franchise agreement’s consignment-services language, Exhibit B page 6, hosted on this site. All matters unadjudicated; everyone named is presumed innocent.
Over fifty days, Bricks & Minifigs made one factual claim about the Mansell consignment four different ways, and each version claimed less than the one before it. On May 21 the consignment was “expressly prohibited” by the franchise agreements. On June 4 it had “never been part of” the franchise agreement. On June 13, one day after the agreement’s consignment page was displayed on screen to a large audience, the claim narrowed to “never approved… as an authorized sales process.” On July 10 the claim was gone. No version has ever been corrected, and the June 4 version was still published on the company’s website when checked on July 13, 2026. The sequence is entirely self-authored: every sentence below is BAM’s, dated, and either archived, in print, or filed by BAM itself in court.
The company’s first statement about the Salem store, posted to bricksandminifigs.com on May 21, made the claim in its strongest possible form:
“Corporate did not sign, approve, or authorize this arrangement. In fact, such consignment deals are expressly prohibited under our franchise agreements to protect both the brand and the community.”
“Expressly prohibited” is a claim about the text of a contract. The contract’s text is checkable. The franchise agreement’s services language, attached as Exhibit B to the fraud suit BAM’s own former franchisees filed against it in March (Utah Business and Chancery Court No. 260200029) and hosted here, reads at page 6: franchisees “may also offer: consignment services… approved by us.” A permission the franchisor grants, on approval, is the opposite of an express prohibition. Six days after publishing the statement, BAM filed it in court as its own Exhibit G to the verified complaint in case 260402353, importing the sentence into the court record.
The company’s June 4 timeline post restated the claim, and “prohibited” was gone. The new version: “Consignment sales have never been part of the BAM model, the franchise agreement or the operations manual,” and, separately, “No franchisee has ever been authorized to enter into a third party consignment arrangement on behalf of BAM.” A prohibition claim had become an absence claim. The Internet Archive captured the page the same day it was published, and the capture carries both sentences verbatim. By June 4, BAM had been a defendant for over two months in the case whose exhibits include the agreement page that mentions consignment services.
On June 12, the creator Internet Anarchist displayed the agreement’s consignment language on screen in a video seen by a seven-figure audience, noting fairly that the agreement conditions consignment on company approval. On June 13, BAM provided media outlets a new statement. The claim now read: “nor did we ever approve consignments as an authorized sales process.” The June 4 absence claim, that consignment was never in the agreement at all, was abandoned without correction, nine days after it was published and one day after the page contradicting it was broadcast.
The company’s July 10 statement, fact-checked on this site claim by claim, contains no consignment claim at all. It does list operational improvements, including an inventory and trade-tracking system the statement describes as newly required, a point the earlier fact-check graded as an admission.
Each version is weaker than the last: a textual prohibition, then an absence, then an unexercised approval, then nothing. The retreat happened without a single posted correction, and the strongest version, “expressly prohibited,” sits in the court file as BAM’s own exhibit. The June 4 version remains live on the company’s site as of July 13, unretracted, alongside the company’s later statements that no longer defend it. The revision sequence is itself the record: it is dated, it is public, and every word of it is the company’s.
The fair counterpoint. Companies revise public statements for many reasons, including caution by counsel, and a narrowing sequence does not by itself establish that any single version was written with knowledge of its falsity. The June 13 version, standing alone, may be literally accurate: the agreement conditions consignment services on company approval, and BAM may never have granted one. The company’s position in litigation is that the Salem consignment was unauthorized, and that position does not depend on the “expressly prohibited” wording. These matters are unadjudicated, and BAM is presumed to have acted lawfully.
Sources: BAM’s May 21 statement, filed by BAM as Exhibit G in Utah case 260402353, hosted here; the June 4 statement, same-day Internet Archive capture and the live page (checked July 13, 2026); the June 13 media statement as carried by Dexerto (June 13) and The Express Tribune (June 14), with a fuller variant read on the Iced Coffee Hour interview of July 10; the July 10 statement, hosted here and fact-checked here; the franchise agreement’s consignment-services language, Exhibit B page 6 in Utah case 260200029, hosted here (and, for context, displayed on screen in Internet Anarchist’s June 12 video). Related: BAM says the consignment broke its rules.
The BAM Map is independent reporting on matters of public concern. Nothing here is a finding of any person’s guilt; the criminal charges referenced are unadjudicated and every defendant is presumed innocent. Sources are linked so readers can check the record. · Home · Map · The law · Bodycam