CONFIRMEDBricks & Minifigs’ own blog posts, diffed across every Internet Archive capture, against the agreement the company filed with the court
Method: every version of all thirty-two 2026 Bricks & Minifigs blog posts was compared snapshot to snapshot on the Internet Archive, with the store-location list, navigation, and shopping-cart code stripped so only the article text is compared. Four posts were changed after publication; two of those changes are substantive and are the subject here. Every capture cited below is a public Internet Archive page and every exhibit is a public court record; the links are in the footer so any reader can repeat the comparison. Every company and person named is presumed to have acted lawfully; nothing here is a finding of illegality.
A public statement is supposed to be a fixed thing. You post it, it carries a date, and it stands. Between May and July, Bricks & Minifigs quietly rewrote two of its own statements about the Salem store after publishing them. One rewrite added the backbone of the company’s defense to a post dated weeks earlier. The other put the company’s official timeline at odds with a document the company itself handed the court. Four of the changes were never marked, and the company plainly knows how to mark a change, because it marked a fifth one.
Of the thirty-two posts, twenty-six show no edit after publication. Two of the four edits that did happen are trivial: one removed a link, one fixed a spelling. Nothing the company cited came from the future; every source it named already existed when it was named. This is not a pattern of secret rewriting across the whole site. It is two specific edits and one clean contradiction, and they are enough on their own.
On May 21 the company posted a note about the Salem store. On May 27 it filed suit and attached that note to the complaint as an exhibit. Within a day of filing, the live version on the website quietly grew: new paragraphs said the company had assessed the store’s inventory, become aware of the consignment arrangement “a few days later,” offered items back, and found from a review of receipts that a high volume of the sets had sold before the store changed hands. That last point is the spine of the company’s public defense, and by the added text’s own words it was worked out after the store transition, yet it now lives inside a post dated May 21. The version sitting in the court file is the version without it. This is also the one edit the company marked, with a single line: “This post was updated 5/27/2026 for additional clarity.” Hold onto that line.
On June 4 the company published a dated timeline of the Salem events. Its own press release, put out the same day, sends readers to it in these words:
Bricks & Minifigs press release, June 4, 2026, linking its readers to the timeline post below.
Over the next month that official timeline was edited four times, with no update notice on any of them. Three of the changes are to facts a timeline exists to fix:
The company that marked one edit for “additional clarity” left all four of these unmarked, including the date it changed and then changed back.
The last row is the sharpest, because there is a fixed answer to check it against, and the company supplied it:
Consignment Agreement, filed by Bricks & Minifigs as Exhibit A to its own verified complaint, Utah case 260402353.
The company’s live timeline dates the making of that agreement to October 2023. The instrument the company filed with the court dates it to November 22, 2023. The archive shows the company briefly agreeing with its own exhibit: the June 5 capture of the timeline reads November 2023, and by the June 6 capture it had been changed back to October, where it sits today. The document the company points the public to disagrees with the document the company handed the judge, on the date of the central agreement, and the company’s own revision history shows it correcting that disagreement and then restoring it.
The claim is narrow and it is the company’s own to answer. A record that can be revised after the fact, and after a version of it has been filed in court, is not the fixed account it presents itself as. The company kept the ability to mark its edits and used it once, on the edit that helped it most, while leaving unmarked the four that changed names and dates on the record it calls official. The one figure a reader can check without anyone’s cooperation, the date on the filed agreement, is the one the live timeline gets wrong. None of this decides who is right about the collection; it is about whether the account has held still, and on these two posts it did not.
Every version below is a public, dated snapshot on the Internet Archive of the exact same web address. Open any two and read them side by side.
The May 21 note
The June 4 timeline, version by version
Primary sources, all public: the four blog posts and their full snapshot histories on the Internet Archive; Exhibit A (Consignment Agreement, effective November 22, 2023) and Exhibit G (the May 21 note) to the verified complaint in Utah case 260402353. The full snapshot list and the before-and-after captures are held and reproducible from the archive by date.
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