The blog did not go dark. It kept up its usual cadence straight through two competing store openings, a store vanishing from BAM’s own locator overnight, and a motion to strike its complaint in federal court. It simply did not mention any of it.
PRIMARY SOURCEBAM’s own blog and its Instagram, Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube and TikTok accounts, swept September 19, 2026PRIMARY SOURCEthe special motion filed September 18, for what it says about BAM’s own statementsINFERENCEthat the statements now used against BAM are why it stopped making them. The sequence is documented; the reason is stated by no one
Here is what BAM published since it last addressed the litigation, set beside what happened around it. The publication dates are BAM’s own.
The same silence holds on every channel BAM links from its own homepage. On September 19 this site checked all of them, unauthenticated, as any reader would: Instagram, with 27,000 followers and 645 posts; Facebook, with 22,400; LinkedIn; the corporate YouTube channel, which has no uploads at all; and TikTok. The only litigation-related item on any of the five is one Facebook link pointing back to the May 21 post about the Salem store.
The silence holds when the press is watching, too. On September 19 the outlet Dexerto covered the dispute and reported that “Bricks & Minifigs has not publicly responded.” That is easy to check, and it matches what the company’s own accounts show.
BAM was not always silent. Between May 21 and July 10 it published four statements about the Salem store, and a single claim in them retreated across all four: consignment deals went from “expressly prohibited” under its franchise agreements, to never “part of” the agreement, to never “approved,” to gone. Those statements are now in front of a federal judge, quoted against the company that made them.
“At the same time, Plaintiffs freely spoke about the situation, attempting (unsuccessfully) to convince the world they had done nothing wrong. In doing so, however, Plaintiffs directly contradicted key allegations they made in filing this suit and obtaining the TRO. While this unfolded, Reckless Ben was silenced by a TRO that operated as a gag order.”
BAM’s most recent public statement did not escape the same fate. When the defense filed its exhibits on September 18, the first one attached was the August 19 settlement post. The last thing BAM said in public is now an exhibit in the motion to dismiss its own case.
Public silence is a choice. The rest is no longer optional. BAM’s counsel signed a stipulation on September 1 asking the court for more time to respond, and the court set the deadline at September 18. The motion arrived on the day BAM’s own lawyers had agreed it was due, and the company now has to answer it on the record, in a filing anyone can read.
The preliminary injunction is the same shape. It was entered on July 6 on a joint motion BAM signed, and its paragraph 2 states that nothing in the order prohibits the defendants from “discussing Plaintiffs, commenting on this litigation, publishing court filings, engaging in investigative journalism, expressing opinions, criticism, satire, and/or commentary.” The one party in the case whose speech a court has affirmatively protected is the one BAM sued. The silence is BAM’s own.
There is one more piece of BAM speech from these weeks, and it did not run on a BAM channel. On September 18, the day the motion was filed, the company’s marketing director, Katelyn Fagan, posted publicly on her own LinkedIn about taking a week of leave.
The post asks whether being indispensable is really leadership, and what she has built if it falls apart while she is away for five days. It ran the day BAM was moved into a filing it now has to answer. The person who runs BAM’s public voice spent that week posting in public. BAM’s public voice did not.
Sources. BAM Franchising’s blog at bricksandminifigs.com, every post published after August 19, 2026, with publication dates taken from each post and linked above; its Instagram, Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube and TikTok accounts as linked from its own homepage, all retrieved unauthenticated on September 19, 2026. The Special Motion for Expedited Relief and its exhibits, ECF 37 and the September 18 errata, in BAM Franchising, Inc. v. Schneider, No. 2:26-cv-00593, District of Utah, the motion hosted here. The Order Granting Joint Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ECF 21, signed July 6, 2026. Katelyn Fagan’s public LinkedIn post of September 18, 2026. Dexerto’s report of September 19, 2026, by Zackerie Fairfax, for its statement that BAM has not publicly responded. Earlier reporting is here, on the four statements and the retreating consignment claim, and here, on the marketing director’s own Slack announcement.