On June 24, a letter went out to BAM’s franchise owners over the signature of Reed Brimhall, chairman of the board. It opens by calling a franchisee association “a positive and constructive voice.” Four paragraphs later, discussion of the association in BAM-managed Slack channels “cannot be permitted.” In between sits a promise: the restriction is narrow, and owners remain free to organize outside BAM’s platforms. Within two months, at least eight stores tied to the association had been cut off BAM’s Slack entirely, secretly. The letter is reproduced in full below, highlights added.
PRIMARY SOURCEa June 24 letter addressed “Franchise Owners,” signed by Reed Brimhall as chairman of the board: discussion of iaBAMf in BAM-managed Slack channels “cannot be permitted”CONFIRMEDwithin two months, at least eight association-tied stores were cut off BAM’s Slack entirely, their accounts still showing activeINFERENCEthe letter’s stated rationale is confusion about endorsement; a ban on “discussion,” followed by removal of the members themselves, reaches past that rationale
It is one page, addressed to the network. The signature is the chairman of the board’s; BAM’s franchise disclosure document lists the same Reed Brimhall as its chief financial officer. In full:
Franchise Owners,
I want to address the recent discussion regarding the Franchisee Owners Association (FOA or iaBAMf) and to let you all know that BAM Franchising, Inc.’s legal counsel has made contact with representatives of the iaBAMf, and we expect that communication to continue through those appropriate legal and professional channels.
We believe a franchisee association can be a positive and constructive voice. When used properly, an association can help create clearer communication, surface real concerns, and contribute to solutions that benefit the system as a whole and we welcome the opportunity to build a productive relationship with any sincere organization that is genuinely committed to those goals.
Because the organization currently referring to itself as iaBAMf is independent of BAM Franchising, Inc., and because BAM has not endorsed, sponsored, recognized, or formally established any official standing with that organization, it would not be appropriate for BAM-managed Slack channels to be used to promote, organize, recruit for, or conduct communications on behalf of iaBAMf at this time.
BAM’s Slack workspace is an official franchisor-managed communication platform. Allowing an unaffiliated organization to operate, promote itself, or conduct business through BAM’s public channels could reasonably create confusion or imply that BAM has endorsed, approved, or formally recognized that organization. That is not the case at this time.
For that reason, until BAM has had the opportunity to better understand the organization, its representatives, its structure, and its stated purpose through the appropriate counsel-led communications, discussion or promotion of iaBAMf in BAM-managed public Slack channels cannot be permitted. This is not intended to prevent franchisees from communicating independently outside of BAM’s official platforms. It is simply intended to protect the integrity of BAM’s official communication channels and avoid any implication of endorsement or recognition before those issues have been properly addressed.
Reed Brimhall
Chairman of the Board
Bricks & Minifigs
Read the highlights in order. In the third paragraph, what would “not be appropriate” is using BAM’s channels to “promote, organize, recruit for, or conduct communications on behalf of” the association: four verbs, all about the association operating through BAM’s platform. By the final paragraph the four verbs have become one noun, and a wider one: “discussion or promotion of iaBAMf… cannot be permitted.” Not organizing through the channels. Discussing. An owner asking, in a company channel, what the association even is would be outside the letter’s final terms. That is the first widening. The other two arrived in August.
The rationale offered does not stretch even that far. The stated concern is that association activity in official channels “could reasonably create confusion or imply that BAM has endorsed” the group. Confusion about endorsement has a standard fix, a disclaimer, and the letter itself performs that fix: BAM “has not endorsed, sponsored, recognized, or formally established any official standing.” A ban on discussion does not manage confusion. It manages discussion. And it holds only “at this time,” “until BAM has had the opportunity to better understand the organization”: a restriction framed as temporary by a letter that never names the day it ends.
The letter also cannot keep its own premise. Its first paragraph says BAM’s counsel “has made contact with representatives of the iaBAMf.” Its final paragraph justifies the ban by BAM’s need to better understand “its representatives.” The thing still to be learned is a thing the letter says BAM’s lawyers had already reached.
The small choices carry the same posture. The association is “the organization currently referring to itself as iaBAMf,” a group not yet entitled to its own name. The welcome extends to “any sincere organization that is genuinely committed,” sincerity to be judged by the party the organization exists to face. And the one sanctioned path runs through “counsel-led communications”: the owners’ association reaches its own franchisor through lawyers.
The ban’s first stated reason is the opening highlight: “Because the organization currently referring to itself as iaBAMf is independent of BAM Franchising, Inc.” The defect named is independence. In franchise law, independence is not the defect. It is the point, and it is the protected feature.
The FTC warned franchisors in July 2024 about using contract terms and threats to suppress franchisee complaints, and at least nine states protect franchisees’ right to join or form an association, among them California and Washington, where interfering with that right is actionable under the state’s franchise-protection laws. Maryland went further this year: House Bill 730, signed May 12, 2026, six weeks before this letter, makes the association right statutory and privately enforceable there starting October 1, 2026. A system-wide policy that keeps restricting association activity past that date reaches franchisees who hold that right by statute.
BAM’s own paperwork concedes the principle. Its 2026 franchise disclosure document reproduces the notice Michigan requires:
“The State of Michigan prohibits certain unfair provisions… the provisions are void and cannot be enforced against you: (a) A prohibition on the right of a franchisee to join an association of franchisees.”
The letter does not prohibit joining; it polices where the association can be mentioned, and its text is built with that line in view. What the record shows next did not stay on the letter’s side of the line.
The letter’s most important sentence is its reassurance: “This is not intended to prevent franchisees from communicating independently outside of BAM’s official platforms.” That is the limiting principle. The ban is about where, not who; the topic, not the people. And its operative terms are scoped to “BAM-managed public Slack channels.”
Then August came, and the second and third widenings with it. At least eight stores tied to iaBAMf were cut off BAM’s Slack entirely, their accounts left showing active so the removals would not show. The ban written for public channels became removal from the workspace. The ban written for a topic became a consequence for the people. The platform they lost is the one BAM’s own operations manual names as an approved way to reach Corporate, in a system where going silent can be a ground for termination. The closer a consequence gets to the member, the closer it stands to the thing the statutes name.
The letter even names what BAM wanted to learn first: “the organization, its representatives, its structure.” The stores cut off in August were the ones tied to the association. What BAM asked to know in June reads, by August, like the list of who lost access.
The owners had reasons to organize. BAM’s own survey, reported to its franchisees in late August, found their most common ask of Corporate was ending the crisis and rebuilding trust, and the company’s answer was a marketing calendar. The association was the owners’ way of asking together, and this letter, with the removals that followed it, is what that asking met. In June, the association could not be discussed. By August, its members could not log in.
The fair reading, and its limit. A franchisor may reasonably moderate its own official channels, confusion about endorsement is a legitimate concern, describing an unaffiliated association as independent is factually accurate, and routing first contact with a new association through counsel is normal corporate practice. The letter expressly preserves franchisees’ freedom to communicate outside BAM’s platforms, scopes its operative ban to BAM-managed public channels, and prohibits no one from joining anything. The narrow points are textual and documentary: the final paragraph’s ban on “discussion” reaches past the letter’s own endorsement rationale, and the removals that followed restricted the members themselves rather than the topic. Whether any statute reaches any of this is a question of fact and law, not decided here; every person named is presumed to have acted lawfully.
Sources. The June 24 letter to BAM franchise owners, primary source, reproduced in full above with highlights added. BAM’s 2026 Franchise Disclosure Document (the Michigan notice and the officer roster), primary source. On the stores cut off from BAM’s Slack, and the operations-manual provisions that make the platform required: here. On franchisee-suppression practices: the FTC’s July 12, 2024 action. Association-right statutes: Cal. Corp. Code § 31220, Wash. Rev. Code § 19.100.180, and 2026 Md. HB 730.
The BAM Map is independent reporting on matters of public concern. Nothing here is a finding of any person’s guilt; every official named is presumed to have acted lawfully. Sources are linked so readers can check the record. · Home · Map · The law · Bodycam