What Is the Bricks and Minifigs Lawsuit?
The Bricks and Minifigs lawsuit most often refers to BAMF Salem 1, LLC v. BAM Franchising, Inc., a civil case in which the former owners of the Salem, Oregon Bricks & Minifigs store sue the franchisor over the November 2024 termination of their franchise. The case is No. 260200029 in the Utah Business and Chancery Court and is assigned to Judge Rita Cornish. It is a single civil case between a franchisee and a franchisor, not a class action and not a multidistrict litigation.
Bricks & Minifigs is a Lego resale franchise operated by BAM Franchising, Inc., which is a separate company from the LEGO Group that makes the toys. The plaintiffs are the store's operating company, Chrystal Law and Benjamin Gorman. They say BAM seized the store, its inventory and a customer's consigned Star Wars collection, and BAM says the owners defaulted on payments they owed under the franchise agreement.
The same events feed several other proceedings, including BAM's federal suit against YouTuber Reckless Ben. Each is a separate case, and the section on related cases below compares them.
“Plaintiffs BAMF Salem 1, LLC (“Salem LLC”), Chrystal Law (“Chrystal”) and Benjamin Gorman (“Benjamin”) (“Plaintiffs”) filed a Complaint in this action in an attempt to enforce rights under and/or otherwise related to the 2/3/23 Franchise Agreement (“FA”) referenced therein and attached thereto as Exhibit B. Plaintiffs’ Complaint asserts twelve causes of action, each of which involves a dispute “arising between or involving the Franchisor and the Franchisee,” and which directly arises out of or relates to the FA.”
Source: Utah Business and Chancery Court, BAMF Salem 1, LLC v. BAM Franchising, Inc., Case No. 260200029, Defendant's Verified Motion to Stay and to Compel Mediation and Then Arbitration (BAM's own description of the complaint; text from a hosted copy of the filing)
Why Was the Bricks and Minifigs Lawsuit Filed?
The Bricks and Minifigs lawsuit was filed because the former Salem owners say BAM wrongfully terminated their franchise and took the store's assets without paying for them. According to BAM's own motion, BAM sent a written termination notice on November 14, 2024, repossessed the store and assumed its lease. The owners filed suit on March 27, 2026, after a pre-suit demand letter dated January 2, 2026.
BAM gives a different reason for the termination. It says the owners failed to make the payments the franchise agreement and the asset purchase agreement required. The owners' lawyer wrote in the demand letter that the parties had agreed to a restructured payment plan, that BAM accepted payments under it for months and that BAM never gave notice of default.
The owners also sued over a customer's consigned Lego collection that was in the store when BAM took over. The demand letter alleges that a BAM representative falsely told the collection's owner that Law had taken the sets. Neither side's account has been tested in court.
What Harms Does the Bricks and Minifigs Lawsuit Allege?
The Bricks and Minifigs lawsuit alleges harms in four groups: the termination itself, the loss of the store's property, damage to reputation and misleading statements made before the franchise sale closed. The groups come from the owners' January 2, 2026 demand letter, which lists eight claims, and from BAM's motion, which says the complaint pleads twelve. BAM disputes the claims, and no court has ruled on any of them.
Wrongful Termination and Breach of Contract
Breach of contract is a legal claim that one party failed to do something an agreement required, and wrongful termination is an ending of that agreement that the other side says the contract did not allow.
The owners say BAM ended the franchise without notice or a chance to cure and ignored a contract term that gave BAM an option to buy the business assets at fair market value within ten days. The demand letter cites Section 15.E of the franchise agreement for that option.
BAM relies on Section 14.A, which it says makes the agreement terminate automatically and without notice when a franchisee misses payments. The demand letter also lists breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, a claim that a party used its contract rights in a way that defeated the other side's expected benefits.
Conversion of Inventory and Consignment Items
Conversion is a legal claim that someone took or kept another person's property without permission, which makes it the civil counterpart of a theft accusation.
The demand letter says BAM took inventory and equipment worth more than $100,000 and about $200,000 in third-party consignment items, all without compensation. BAM says it credited an estimated $30,000 for the repossessed assets against what it says the owners owed.
The consignment items belonged to the Mansell family, and their fate is disputed. BAM said the full list of sets in the family's records was not found in the store when it took over. The owners' suit says about half the collection remained there, with a value of up to $125,000, according to the Salt Lake Tribune.
Defamation
Defamation is a legal claim that someone published a false statement of fact that damaged another person's or business's reputation.
The demand letter calls the alleged statement to the collection's owner defamation per se, a category of claim that accuses someone of dishonesty in business. The owners say they never took the sets and that BAM seized them.
BAM's published timeline makes the opposite accusation. It claims Law under-reported sales to the collection's owner and sold at least $72,000 of his sets, according to CBC News. Law told CBC she has not seen the accounting behind that claim and would pay the family if it proves correct.
Fraud in the Inducement
Fraud in the inducement is a legal claim that a party was persuaded to sign a contract by a false statement about something important to the deal.
The demand letter alleges BAM described the Salem franchise as a turnkey operation and said it intended a good-faith relationship, while it never completed the bank account transfer and lease assignment the deal required. Franchise Times reports that the owners' lawsuit includes breach of contract, defamation and fraudulent inducement claims.
BAM's motion treats these claims as questions for a mediator or arbitrator. It argues that an allegation that a contract was fraudulently induced does not void the contract's separate dispute resolution clause.
What Is the Current Status of the Bricks and Minifigs Lawsuit?
The current status of the Bricks and Minifigs lawsuit is a pending case with no known ruling on BAM's request to move it to mediation and arbitration. In May 2026, BAM filed a verified motion asking Judge Cornish to stay the case and compel the former owners to mediate and then arbitrate. As of October 20, 2026, public reporting showed no order on that motion, so this page cannot confirm a ruling.
BAMF Salem 1, LLC v. BAM Franchising, Inc. (Utah Business and Chancery Court)
The owners filed the case on March 27, 2026, according to BAM's motion. A tracker citing BAM's franchise disclosure document gives April 16, so sources differ on the filing date.
| Court | Utah Business and Chancery Court |
| Case Number | 260200029 |
| Judge | Rita Cornish |
| Plaintiffs | BAMF Salem 1, LLC; Chrystal Law; Benjamin Gorman |
| Defendant | BAM Franchising, Inc. |
| Filed | March 27, 2026, per BAM's motion |
| Claims Pleaded | 12 causes of action per BAM's motion, including breach of contract, defamation and fraudulent inducement per Franchise Times |
| Pending Motion | BAM's verified motion to stay and to compel mediation and then arbitration under Utah Code section 78B-11-108, filed May 2026 |
| Dispute Resolution Clause | Franchise agreement Section 17: face-to-face meeting, then non-binding AAA mediation, then binding AAA arbitration in Utah County |
BAM argues that every claim arises from the franchise agreement, so the contract requires mediation and then arbitration. The motion says the complaint offers six reasons the clause should not apply, and BAM answers each one.
BAM Franchising, Inc. v. Schneider (D. Utah)
This separate federal case is the suit BAM and five associates brought against YouTuber Benjamin Schneider, known as Reckless Ben, and others over his video series. The Reckless Ben Lego lawsuit page covers it in full, so only its status appears here.
| Court | U.S. District Court, District of Utah |
| Case Number | 2:26-cv-00593-DBB-CMR |
| Judge | District Judge David Barlow |
| Removed From State Court | June 26, 2026 |
| Latest Docket Entry Reviewed | October 13, 2026 order, ECF No. 49 |
| Bryan Mansell | Settled with the plaintiffs, described in the settlement section below |
The October 13 order lets the defendants file a supplemental memorandum of up to 10 pages within 21 days in support of their motion for partial dismissal. That filing restarts the plaintiffs' 28-day period to respond.
Has the Bricks and Minifigs Lawsuit Settled?
Yes, in part: the Bricks and Minifigs lawsuit has settled only as to the Mansell family, under a written agreement dated August 16, 2026, while the former Salem owners' case against BAM remains unsettled. A joint statement released August 19 called the deal a comprehensive resolution of a private civil dispute over the Mansell family's Star Wars Lego collection.
The parties described the agreement as a compromise of disputed claims and not an admission of liability by anyone. BAM did not announce the terms, and the court filing states no payment amount, although the joint statement says BAM compensated the Mansells for their losses.
The agreement assigned Bryan Mansell's claims under the original consignment contract to BAM, which may pursue them against those responsible, and the Mansells agreed to provide records in support. The joint statement places part of the loss on the store's former operator, and Law has denied that account.
On August 27, BAM and Mansell asked the federal court to enter a permanent injunction against Mansell and to dismiss the remaining claims against him with prejudice. The filing expressly reserves BAM's claims against every other defendant.
The former owners' own case has no settlement and no judgment. Their January 2026 demand letter put damages above $750,000 before interest, fees and punitive damages, which is a pre-suit figure and not a court award.
The value of the Mansell collection is also disputed. The $200,000 figure began as a promotional estimate, BAM has said a realistic value is closer to $95,000 to $100,000, and media reports have cited as much as $278,000. A fundraiser for the Mansell family had raised more than $670,000 by mid-June 2026, according to CBC News.
Latest Bricks and Minifigs Lawsuit Updates
The latest Bricks and Minifigs lawsuit updates and news, including new filings, rulings, and case-count reports, are tracked below as they're confirmed. The former Salem owners' civil case against BAM Franchising continues in active pretrial proceedings as of October 2026, with no global settlement reached. See the full timeline below for every confirmed development since the litigation began.
Full Bricks and Minifigs Lawsuit Timeline
Federal Court Lets Defendants Supplement Their Motion in BAM's Case Against Reckless Ben
Judge David Barlow granted a joint stipulation on October 13 in No. 2:26-cv-00593 that lets Schneider, Reckless Ben LLC and Victor Nguyen file a supplemental memorandum of up to 10 pages within 21 days. The filing restarts the plaintiffs' 28-day period to respond to the defendants' UPEPA motion, per ECF No. 49.
Defendants File a Special Motion for Partial Dismissal in the Federal Case
Schneider, Reckless Ben LLC and Victor Nguyen filed a special motion for expedited relief and partial dismissal of BAM's verified complaint on September 18 in the District of Utah. The motion invokes Utah's Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, and the federal docket shows exhibits filed the same day.
Bryan Mansell Says His Sets Were Returned
Bryan Mansell said during a livestream on September 2 that Bricks & Minifigs had returned his Lego sets, according to a Wikipedia summary of the dispute. The statement came two weeks after BAM and the Mansell family announced their settlement.
BAM and Mansell Ask the Federal Court for an Injunction and Dismissal
BAM Franchising and the other plaintiffs jointly moved on August 27 for a permanent injunction against Bryan Mansell and for a with-prejudice dismissal of the remaining claims against him. The motion, ECF No. 33 in No. 2:26-cv-00593, reserves the plaintiffs' claims against all other defendants.
BAM and the Mansell Family Announce a Resolution
BAM Franchising and the Mansell family released a joint statement on August 19 announcing a resolution of their dispute through voluntary mediation. The statement says the Mansells were compensated, that BAM issued an unqualified apology, and that Bryan Mansell assigned his consignment-contract claims to BAM.
BAM and Mansell Sign a Settlement Agreement
BAM Franchising, the individual plaintiffs and Bryan Mansell signed a Settlement, Assignment of Claims, and Mutual General Release Agreement dated August 16, according to the plaintiffs' August 27 federal filing. The filing says the agreement followed a lengthy mediation and involves no admission of fault.
Federal Court Enters an Agreed Preliminary Injunction in BAM's Case Against Reckless Ben
Judge David Barlow entered a preliminary injunction on July 7 that the parties had jointly requested, replacing the earlier Utah state restraining order. The order is part of the separate Reckless Ben case, and it lets the defendants comment on the litigation while barring threats and approaches to BAM stores and owners.
Schneider's Side Removes BAM's Suit to Federal Court
The defendants in BAM's Utah state case filed a notice of removal on June 26, moving the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah on diversity grounds. The federal docket for No. 2:26-cv-00593 opened that day.
BAM Announces the Salem Store Will Close Permanently
Bricks & Minifigs announced on June 4 that it would close the Salem, Oregon store permanently and part ways with franchise owners Brandon Best and Josh Johnson, which it called a mutual agreement. The company blamed what it called a devastating social media campaign, and it repeated an offer to resolve matters with Bryan Mansell.
Utah Judge Grants a Restraining Order in BAM's Case Against Reckless Ben
A Utah Fourth District Court judge granted a temporary restraining order against the defendants in BAM's suit on May 28, according to CBC News. The Salt Lake Tribune dates the order to June 2, so reports differ by several days.
BAM and Five Associates File Suit in Utah Against Reckless Ben and Others
BAM Franchising and associated plaintiffs sued Schneider, Bryan Mansell and others in Utah's Fourth District Court on May 27, according to CBC News. The complaint alleges defamation, racketeering and harassment, and the defendants dispute it.
BAM Moves to Stay the Former Owners' Case and Compel Mediation
BAM Franchising filed a verified motion in Utah Business and Chancery Court Case No. 260200029 asking Judge Cornish to stay the former owners' case and compel mediation and then arbitration, according to the Salt Lake Tribune. No ruling on the motion appeared in later reporting.
Schneider Posts the First Video About the Mansell Collection
YouTuber Benjamin Schneider, known as Reckless Ben, posted a video on May 21 titled "I tracked down the thief who stole $200,000 of Lego." CBC News reported 5.8 million views for the video in early June, and the series drew the national attention that followed.
Former Salem Owners File Suit Against BAM Franchising
BAMF Salem 1, LLC, Chrystal Law and Benjamin Gorman filed their lawsuit against BAM Franchising, Inc. in Utah Business and Chancery Court on March 27, according to BAM's own motion in Case No. 260200029. The case is assigned to Judge Rita Cornish.
Owners' Lawyer Sends BAM a Dispute Notice and Demand for a Meeting
Attorney Sarah Elizabeth Spencer sent BAM a formal dispute notice on January 2, 2026, invoking the franchise agreement's dispute resolution clause and demanding a face-to-face meeting in Orem, Utah. The letter claimed damages above $750,000, and BAM's motion says the meeting later took place.
BAM Terminates the Salem Franchise and Takes the Store
BAM Franchising issued a written termination notice on November 14, 2024, repossessed the Salem, Oregon store and assumed its lease, according to BAM's own motion. The owners call the takeover an ambush without notice of default, and the parties still dispute what happened to the Mansell consignment.
Bryan Mansell Consigns His Family's Star Wars Lego Collection to the Salem Store
Bryan Mansell signed a consignment agreement in November 2023 with the Salem store's operator, under which the store sold sets from his father's collection for a 35% commission and paid him 65%. Gizmodo reports that the contract left ownership of the sets with Mansell until each one sold.
Law and Gorman Buy the Salem Store From BAM
Chrystal Law and Benjamin Gorman signed a business and asset purchase agreement with BAM dated February 2, 2023, and the franchise agreement followed within days, per BAM's motion. Law had previously managed the store as a corporate employee before becoming its private franchisee.
What Evidence Is Cited in the Bricks and Minifigs Lawsuit?
The evidence cited in the Bricks and Minifigs lawsuit consists mainly of contracts, termination papers, store video and each side's accounting. The central documents are the February 2023 franchise agreement and asset purchase agreement, which BAM's motion describes as exhibits to the owners' complaint, and BAM's November 14, 2024 written termination notice.
The owners also point to security footage of the takeover, which Gizmodo reports appears to support their account, and to photographs and videos they say show the Mansell sets marked with yellow dot stickers on the shelves. Nerdbeak, describing their lawsuit, counts more than 220 photos and 11 videos.
BAM relies on its point-of-sale data and on three Star Wars spreadsheets it says it found, which it says show under-reported sales. The owners say they have not seen the full accounting, and a court has not examined either side's records.
Why Does Bricks and Minifigs Say It Terminated the Salem Franchise?
Bricks & Minifigs says it terminated the Salem franchise because the owners defaulted on payments under the franchise and asset purchase agreements. BAM's motion states that the unpaid amounts eventually exceeded an estimated $175,000. It adds that Section 14.A lets the agreement terminate automatically without notice after a payment default, and that BAM credited about $30,000 for the repossessed assets against the debt.
BAM also says it never authorized the Mansell consignment, because it says its franchise rules do not allow consigning Lego products. Franchise Times reports that the franchise disclosure document lets franchisees offer "consignment services," which the CEO says is different from consigning products. IGN reports that Law answered by pointing to contract language that allows consignments.
| Party | Position | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Bricks & Minifigs | Terminated under Section 14.A after payment defaults, with no duty to give notice | BAM's verified motion, Case No. 260200029 |
| Chrystal Law and Benjamin Gorman | Agreed a restructured payment plan, BAM accepted payments, and BAM gave no notice of default | January 2, 2026 demand letter attached to BAM's motion |
| Bricks & Minifigs, on consignment | The consignment was unauthorized and the incoming owners did not know of it | BAM statements reported by CBC News |
| Chrystal Law, on consignment | Her franchise contract allowed consignments | IGN |
How Does the Bricks and Minifigs Lawsuit Compare to Related Cases?
The Bricks and Minifigs lawsuit compares to related cases as one of several proceedings that share the Salem store story, and news coverage often labels all of them "the Bricks and Minifigs lawsuit." The table below separates them by parties and court.
The best-known related case is BAM's suit against Reckless Ben, which is a defamation and harassment case and not a franchise dispute. Schneider also faces separate criminal charges in Utah, and charges are not convictions.
| Case | Parties | Court | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| BAMF Salem 1, LLC v. BAM Franchising, Inc. | Former Salem owners against the franchisor | Utah Business and Chancery Court | Pending, the main case on this page |
| BAM Franchising, Inc. v. Schneider | BAM and five associates against Reckless Ben and others | U.S. District Court, District of Utah | Pending, covered on the Reckless Ben page |
| BAM and Mansell consignment dispute | Mansell family and BAM | Settled within the federal case and mediation | Settled August 16, 2026 |
| Utah criminal case against Schneider | Prosecutors against Reckless Ben | Utah state court | Misdemeanor charges filed March 2026, per CBC News |
| Schneider small claims suit | Schneider against a Salem co-owner, seeking $10,000 in Lego | Oregon small claims court | Reported by CBC News, outcome not found |
The Reckless Ben Lego lawsuit page tracks the federal case and the criminal matters in detail.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Bricks and Minifigs lawsuit about?
The Bricks and Minifigs lawsuit is about whether BAM Franchising wrongfully terminated the Salem, Oregon franchise of Chrystal Law and Benjamin Gorman and took the store's assets. The owners allege breach of contract, conversion, defamation and fraud, and BAM says the owners defaulted on payments.
Is the Bricks and Minifigs lawsuit a class action?
No. The Bricks and Minifigs lawsuit is a single civil case, BAMF Salem 1, LLC v. BAM Franchising, Inc., No. 260200029 in the Utah Business and Chancery Court. It is not a class action or a multidistrict litigation, so no group of claimants can join it.
Who is suing Bricks and Minifigs in the lawsuit?
BAMF Salem 1, LLC, Chrystal Law and Benjamin Gorman are suing Bricks and Minifigs' franchisor, BAM Franchising, Inc. They operated the Salem, Oregon store until BAM terminated the franchise on November 14, 2024.
Has the Bricks and Minifigs lawsuit settled?
The Bricks and Minifigs lawsuit has settled only in part, because BAM and the Mansell family signed a settlement agreement on August 16, 2026, while the former Salem owners' case against BAM remains pending. The parties called the deal a compromise and not an admission of liability.
What is the latest in the Bricks and Minifigs lawsuit?
The latest verified event in the Bricks and Minifigs lawsuit is an October 13, 2026 federal order in BAM's separate case against Reckless Ben, which lets the defendants supplement their motion for partial dismissal. In the former owners' case, no ruling on BAM's motion to compel mediation and arbitration was found.
Is the Bricks and Minifigs lawsuit the same as the Reckless Ben lawsuit?
No. The Bricks and Minifigs lawsuit by the former Salem owners is a different case from BAM's suit against Reckless Ben. The first is a franchise dispute in Utah state court, and the second is a defamation and harassment case in federal court, No. 2:26-cv-00593.
Is Bricks and Minifigs the same company as LEGO?
No. Bricks and Minifigs is an independent Lego resale franchise operated by BAM Franchising, Inc., and the LEGO Group that makes the toys is a separate company that is not a party to the lawsuit.