The notice BAM’s chief operating officer swore on September 8 came back on September 23, pasted, still dated September 8, and filed against the site’s home page. It names the same three pages, which have said “taken down per the demand of BAM Franchising” since September 9, and the same file, deleted the same day, and asks for nothing else. It swears again to a prior complaint this site was never sent, and asks the host again for the names behind this site. The two most-read updates on this site are the company’s cease-and-desist letter and its first takedown notice. Four days before the second was filed, Matt McNeff told every franchisee the plan was to become “more boring and less interesting.”
PRIMARY SOURCEthe notice, as forwarded to this site by its host on September 23, reproduced in full below; its text is the September 8 notice published here on September 9, minus the parts about another websiteCONFIRMEDthe three pages it names have carried a takedown notice since September 9, the file was deleted that day, and the home page it was filed against holds none of the material it describesCONFIRMEDthe notice again cites “Vercel Case No. 01391428”; no notice under that number, or any other, has ever reached this site from its hostCONFIRMEDthe U.S. Copyright Office public record, searched September 23, shows no registration for any work the notice describes, or for any work under BAM Franchising’s name
The notice under the new address is the September 8 notice: the same works in the same sentences, the same three addresses, the same five requests, the same two sworn statements, and the same date under the signature. On September 8 the accuracy statement described three live pages. On September 23 the same statement, unchanged, described three takedown notices.
Two things were cut, both about a different website: a section listing its addresses, and its name in the request that the host preserve records, which now asks for the records “associated with thebammap.com a, including available,” the stub of the sentence it was taken from. That section was the one thing this site said on September 9 did not belong in a notice to this host. One thing was kept: the sworn claim that this site is a repeat infringer under “Vercel Case No. 01391428,” which this site established on September 9 no notice ever carried. The company read the page. It cut what the page said was misplaced and kept what the page said was false. The manual stayed too. Section 1.C still swears that the 311-page Franchisee Training & Operations Manual is BAM’s and “not to be shared outside the company,” and the notice now names no address for it at all. It is where it was, at www.bamopsmanual.com.
For the third time in eight weeks, a statement sworn to erase a document has certified it instead. The study is “currently maintained in BAM’s Google Workspace,” the manual is kept “in its corporate records,” and the script is “BAM’s internal document,” twice now under oath.
BAM’s takedown notice, reproduced verbatim as forwarded by this site’s host on September 23, 2026; nothing added, removed, or paraphrased. Every “[Redacted]” is Vercel’s own: the host removed the sender’s name and contact details before forwarding the notice, as it did on September 8. This site removed nothing. The address it was filed against was https://www.thebammap.com.
I, [Redacted], am Chief Operating Officer of BAM Franchising, Inc. (“BAM”) and am authorized to act on behalf of BAM with respect to the copyrighted works identified below.
BAM previously submitted copyright complaints concerning unauthorized reproduction of BAM materials on thebammap.com, including Vercel Case No. 01391428. Additional BAM-created proprietary works have since been obtained, copied, reproduced, and distributed through the same website and associated website infrastructure.
This notice concerns those newly published materials, as well as continuing reproduction of BAM’s Franchisee Training & Operations Manual.
1. Copyrighted Works
A. BAM Confidential Incident Impact Report / Store Performance Analysis
BAM owns the copyright in an internal spreadsheet currently maintained in BAM’s Google Workspace under the title “Confidential Incident Impact Report.”
The workbook contains BAM-created analysis organized into five substantive worksheets:
The work includes BAM’s original selection and arrangement of information, analytical structure, categories, written category definitions, tables, charts, formulas, presentation and compilation.
Among BAM’s original analytical categories are “The Impacted,” “Consistent Struggles,” “Resilient Performers,” “The Turnarounds,” and “The Bounce-Backs,” together with BAM’s written definitions and classification methodology.
BAM does not claim copyright in unprotectable underlying facts or individual numerical facts standing alone. The complaint concerns the copying, reproduction, distribution, and display of BAM’s copyrighted workbook, its original expression, analytical structure, selection and arrangement, definitions, tables, charts, and compilation.
An original copy of the workbook can be supplied to Vercel confidentially for comparison.
B. Franchisee Field Guide & Talking Points / Resolution Strategy
BAM owns copyright in internal corporate communications and crisis-response materials contained in BAM’s internal document “Resolution Strategy - Corporate & Social Media,” including the section entitled “Franchisee Field Guide & Talking Points.”
This document contains BAM-created original written guidance, messaging principles, moderation instructions, scenarios, and prepared responses for franchise owners.
An original BAM copy can be supplied to Vercel for comparison.
C. Bricks & Minifigs Franchisee Training & Operations Manual, Edition V.10.6.24
BAM owns copyright in the Bricks & Minifigs Franchisee Training & Operations Manual, Edition V.10.6.24, including its original text, graphics, photographs, tables, instructional material, selection and arrangement, and related training content.
The complete manual is approximately 311 pages and includes nineteen numbered operational sections and appendices concerning franchise operations, financial procedures, customer service, safety, inventory, purchasing, pricing, vendors, loss prevention, brand standards, marketing, hiring, recruiting, and related subjects.
The manual itself states that it is intended for franchise owners only and is not to be shared outside the company.
BAM maintains the original manual in its corporate records and can provide an original electronic copy for comparison.
2. Infringing Material and Locations
A. September 3, 2026 - BAM Internal Store Performance Workbook
Infringing page:
https://www.thebammap.com/updates/20260903/1
This page reproduces substantial portions of BAM’s internal Confidential Incident Impact Report, including BAM’s original analytical categories, definitions, compilation, tables, store-level analysis and organizational structure.
More significantly, the page provides a direct download of a reconstructed copy of BAM’s internal workbook containing all five underlying worksheets.
Direct infringing file:
https://www.thebammap.com/updates/20260903/1/bam-store-analysis-reconstructed.xlsx
The page expressly represents this download as the complete workbook, including the Summary, dashboard, April, May and June store tables.
BAM requests that Vercel disable access to both the webpage and the downloadable workbook, together with materially identical copies stored in the same account or deployments.
B. September 4, 2026 - Continued Reproduction of BAM Store Performance Analysis
Infringing page:
https://www.thebammap.com/updates/20260904/1
This page again links to the copied workbook and reproduces substantial elements of BAM’s copyrighted internal analysis, including BAM’s original categories and definitions, Summary-tab organization, counts, tables and store-performance compilation.
The publisher then combines the copied BAM material with its own attempt to identify the stores associated with BAM’s anonymized unit numbers.
BAM is not asserting copyright over the publisher’s independently created commentary or independently developed store-identification analysis. The infringement complained of is the underlying reproduction, display and distribution of BAM’s copyrighted workbook and protectable expression incorporated into and linked from this page.
BAM requests removal or disabling of the copied BAM material and downloadable workbook, and, to the extent that the page cannot be separated from the infringing material, disabling of the page.
C. August 20, 2026 - Franchisee Field Guide & Talking Points
Infringing page:
https://www.thebammap.com/updates/20260820/1
The publisher expressly states that it obtained BAM’s internal talking-points document and that the document is “reproduced in full below.”
The page then reproduces BAM’s Franchisee Field Guide & Talking Points, including its original messaging principles, moderation rules, scenarios and prepared responses.
This is not merely quotation of isolated portions for commentary; the copyrighted BAM work is reproduced substantially in full.
BAM requests removal or disabling of the copied document and materially identical reproductions.
3. Requested Action
BAM respectfully requests that Vercel:
Because this appears to involve repeated publication of BAM copyrighted works after prior copyright notices, BAM also asks Vercel to evaluate the account under its repeat-infringer policy.
4. Preservation Request
Separate from the DMCA takedown request, BAM requests that Vercel preserve, pending appropriate legal process, records concerning the accounts and deployments associated with thebammap.com a, including available:
BAM understands that this preservation request is separate from the statutory DMCA notice and that disclosure of nonpublic subscriber information may require appropriate legal process.
5. Contact Information
[Redacted]
Chief Operating Officer
BAM Franchising, Inc.
[Redacted]
Telephone: [Redacted]
Email: [Redacted]
6. Good-Faith Statement
I have a good-faith belief that the use of the copyrighted materials identified above in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
7. Accuracy and Authority Statement
I state that the information in this notification is accurate and, under penalty of perjury, that I am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of the exclusive rights alleged to have been infringed.
Electronic signature:
[Redacted]
Chief Operating Officer
BAM Franchising, Inc.
Date: September 8, 2026
Every entry is BAM’s own act, in its own words.
Open any of the three addresses in the notice. The first, the second and the third each show a title and one paragraph: “This update has been taken down per the demand of BAM Franchising, Inc., made in a copyright notice its chief operating officer filed with this site’s host under penalty of perjury on September 8, 2026.” The file the notice calls a “direct infringing file” was deleted the same day, and its addresses lead to a page that says so. The host’s two-business-day window on the first notice closed on September 10. The three pages were down, the rest of the site was up, and it stayed up. By the host’s own process, quoted in its forward, a removal within that window is reported to the complaining party. Thirteen days later the same notice came back, for the whole site. That is what the company swore, on September 23, were infringing pages, and asked to have removed.
The address it filed against is the home page. The home page carries none of the material the notice describes. What it does carry, near the top, is a line that has been there as long as the site has: Those who operate in the shadows fear the light. This page is that light. That is the page the notice was filed against.
The notice itself says BAM “does not claim copyright in unprotectable underlying facts” and “is not asserting copyright over the publisher’s independently created commentary,” which is what every page under the home page is made of. In July the company asked this site to remove more than sixty pages. In September it asked the host to remove three. On September 23 it asked for all of them. It has not disputed a sentence on any of them.
The first notice asked the host for a case number “so that subsequent notices concerning the same account can be properly associated with this matter,” and asked the host “to evaluate the account under its repeat-infringer policy.” The statute requires a host to have a policy of terminating repeat infringers. Repeat means twice. This is the subsequent notice, and it is the first one, filed again: the second entry in a file the first entry announced. The company did not find a second infringement. It made a second notice out of the first.
The notice was written to remove three pages. It was filed to remove a site.
In July the unsigned letter asked this site for the names of the people who supplied the documents: “the identities of all persons who provided or published the materials.” On September 8 the sworn notice asked the host for the names of the people who publish them: “records identifying persons who created, administered, funded, uploaded to, or controlled the relevant projects.” On September 23 it asked again, for the whole site.
A takedown notice is also a key: under the same statute, a copyright owner who has sent one can ask a court clerk, with no judge, for a subpoena ordering the host to identify the account. A notice about a page is a key to a page. A notice about the home page is a key to the site. The key has been tried: in 2022 a federal court in San Francisco quashed a subpoena of exactly that kind, aimed at an anonymous account, because its speech was fair use and the First Amendment protects the anonymous speaker. “Funded” is the company’s theory about this site, sworn as a request for the proof it does not have. In July this site declined to name the people who supplied the documents. The company is still asking who publishes this site, and it has now asked three times. The answer remains a resounding, publicly published no.
“Our goal is just to not even play that game. Obviously, as we become more boring and less interesting, fewer people are going to pay attention. And so that’s kind of the strategy.” ... “We won’t be responding, we won’t be reacting, we won’t be giving them any more oxygen.”
In the same video he promised to “hit both Reckless Ben and those that affiliate with him.” The video, sent to every franchisee, was transcribed and published on September 20. On September 23 a sworn notice against this whole site was in front of its host, asking for the records of who “funded” and “controlled” it. This site’s corrections line has been open since it launched. BAM has used it once, to demand names. It has never used it to say a sentence here was wrong, and it has now sworn three times.
Every move BAM has made against the reporting on it has become a page on this site, because every move is a document, and documents are what this site is made of. The attempts, in order, and what came of each.
“Bricks and Minifigs can stuff it.”
The oxygen is the notice. Plagiarism Today put the rule in five words after the July letter: “Legal threats mean fresh headlines.” The notice asks a host to delete the source that the press now cites, over three pages that are already gone. The one move that starves this site is the one McNeff described: stop producing documents. He described it on a Saturday. By Wednesday a sworn one had reached the host.
The oath in a notice covers only the signer’s authority to act for the owner. The accuracy of the notice is enforced by 17 U.S.C. § 512(f): anyone who “knowingly materially misrepresents” that material is infringing “shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees,” to the publisher and to the host. A notice must also identify the material it is about; a home page is a location, not an identification, and this one identifies three pages that are not there. Courts have made senders pay. Diebold paid $125,000 for notices sent against leaked internal emails that no reasonable copyright holder could have believed were protected, Online Policy Group v. Diebold, 337 F. Supp. 2d 1195 (N.D. Cal. 2004). The sender of a false notice against a student journalist’s post, which had quoted the sender’s own press statement, was ordered to pay the journalist and his host $25,084, Automattic v. Steiner, 82 F. Supp. 3d 1011 (N.D. Cal. 2015). Liability turns on what the sender knew, and what this sender knew is on the record it made: three pages down for two weeks, a date two weeks old, a case number already shown to be empty, and a text that disclaims the facts. What the law calls that is for a court.
It will not be BAM’s court. The notice offers the host a look at the study, “supplied to Vercel confidentially for comparison.” There is one place the company has not supplied a copy. Fifty-seven days after its first letter, and fifteen after the notice it has now filed twice, the Copyright Office public record shows no registration for the study, the script, the manual, or any work under the company’s name. Until it registers, it cannot file a copyright case over any of them, 17 U.S.C. § 411(a), Fourth Estate v. Wall-Street.com, 586 U.S. 296 (2019). Registration means depositing the work with the Copyright Office, where it is open to public inspection. The company that will show its study to a hosting company confidentially cannot sue over it without publishing it. So it does not sue. Instead, it files the same notice twice.
In July the company claimed everything and signed nothing. On September 8 it signed, claimed the wrapper, and gave up the facts in writing. On September 23 it filed the same page again, unchanged, and pointed it at the whole site. Demands: three. Oaths: three. Pages asked for: more than sixty, then three, then all of them. Sentences disputed: none. Registrations: none. Corrections requested by BAM or its counsel, as of September 24, 2026: none.
The two most-read pages of reporting on this site are the company’s cease-and-desist letter and the notice its chief operating officer signed. Four days before that notice was filed again, the same officer told every franchisee that the strategy was to become boring, and that the company would not be giving anyone any more oxygen. The notice is the oxygen. It has been supplied twice. Nothing on this site is coming down over it, because it identifies nothing on it. The next will be published when it arrives, as the first two were, and it will be read more than the pages it names, as the first two were. The notice is now part of the record it objects to, twice. So is the page it was filed against. It still reads as it did that day: Those who operate in the shadows fear the light. It is not extinguished on demand.
Sources. The notice, reproduced above as forwarded by this site’s host on September 23, 2026, and its September 8 text, published in full on September 9. The July letter, published here. Matthew McNeff’s September 19 video, transcribed here. U.S. Copyright Office Public Records System, searched September 23, 2026: keyword, title, claimant and name searches for BAM Franchising, Bricks & Minifigs, the Confidential Incident Impact Report, the Resolution Strategy and McNeff; no registration on file for any work the notice describes or under BAM Franchising’s name. This site’s analytics (Vercel Web Analytics), daily visitors and pageviews by path, queried September 23, 2026; the counts exclude readers whose browsers block counting. Dexerto, September 13, 2026, “Reckless Ben opens rival LEGO store in former Bricks & Minifigs location amid lawsuit.” Brick Fanatics, September 13, 2026, “Bricks & Minifigs responds to Reckless Bricks opening.” Jack Conte, “Take Down Notification: Reckless Ben’s Patreon Account,” JackConteExtras, June 2, 2026, quoted from its captions. Jonathan Bailey, Plagiarism Today, July 30, 2026, “Bricks & Minifigs Sends Threat to The BAM Map.” Authority: 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3)(A), (f), (h), (i); 17 U.S.C. § 411(a) and Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC, 586 U.S. 296 (2019); Online Policy Group v. Diebold, Inc., 337 F. Supp. 2d 1195 (N.D. Cal. 2004) and the EFF case page on the payment; Automattic Inc. v. Steiner, 82 F. Supp. 3d 1011 (N.D. Cal. 2015); In re DMCA § 512(h) Subpoena to Twitter, Inc., 608 F. Supp. 3d 868 (N.D. Cal. 2022), docket 3:20-mc-80214, and the order granting the motion to quash. This site’s right of reply is open to everyone named here.