What Is the Reckless Ben Lego Lawsuit?
The Reckless Ben Lego lawsuit is BAM Franchising, Inc. v. Schneider, a civil case in which the Bricks & Minifigs franchisor and five associated plaintiffs sue YouTuber Benjamin Schneider, known as Reckless Ben. The case is No. 2:26-cv-00593 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, assigned to Judge David Barlow. It is a single civil case, not a class action and not a multidistrict litigation.
Bricks & Minifigs is a Lego resale franchise with more than 300 stores. Schneider published a video series in May 2026 about a Star Wars Lego collection consigned to its Salem, Oregon store. The plaintiffs say the videos defamed them and fueled harassment, and Schneider says the videos reported the truth.
Several other proceedings share this story, including criminal charges against Schneider and a separate suit by the former Salem store owner. Each is a different case, described in the comparison section below.
“Plaintiffs allege they are suffering and will continue to suffer immediate and irreparable injury before this action can be fully heard, as set forth in the Verified Complaint and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Defendants dispute these allegations, intend to assert counterclaims against Plaintiffs, and contest Plaintiffs' entitlement to any relief, including, but not limited to, a permanent injunction.”
Source: U.S. District Court, District of Utah, BAM Franchising, Inc. v. Schneider, No. 2:26-cv-00593-DBB-CMR, Order Granting Joint Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 21 (July 7, 2026)
Why Was the Reckless Ben Lego Lawsuit Filed?
The Reckless Ben Lego lawsuit was filed because the plaintiffs say Schneider's videos about a missing Lego collection defamed them and drove harassment of franchise owners. According to Schneider's own notice of removal, the plaintiffs filed their verified complaint on May 27, 2026, six days after his first video appeared.
The videos grew out of a consignment dispute. Bryan Mansell placed his family's Star Wars Lego collection with the Salem, Oregon franchise in November 2023, and the franchise changed hands in November 2024. Mansell said the collection was never returned, and he asked Schneider to investigate.
Bricks & Minifigs says the consignment was never approved by corporate and that the prior store owner is responsible for it. The plaintiffs also allege that Schneider's team impersonated delivery workers and placed signs near homes. Schneider disputes those allegations, and none has been proven in court.
What Harms Does the Reckless Ben Lego Lawsuit Allege?
The Reckless Ben Lego lawsuit includes 13 pleaded causes of action, grouped here into six harms. These are the plaintiffs' allegations, taken from the verified complaint as the defendants' motion describes it. Schneider, Reckless Ben LLC and Victor Nguyen dispute every claim, and no court has ruled on the merits of any of them.
Defamation
Defamation is a legal claim that someone published a false statement of fact that damaged another person's or company's reputation.
The complaint pleads defamation per se, ordinary defamation and false light. The plaintiffs point to the video series and to signs that accused franchise owners of taking a dying man's life savings. Schneider answers that his videos are protected opinion, satire and truthful reporting.
His September motion argues the complaint never identifies a specific false statement. A court has not decided who is right.
Civil Racketeering
Civil racketeering, often called RICO, is a legal claim that a group carried out a pattern of specified unlawful acts through an organized enterprise.
The first cause of action invokes Utah's racketeering statute, which the defendants' motion says tracks the federal RICO law. The plaintiffs allege a coordinated campaign of harassment and extortion against franchise owners in Utah and Oregon.
The defendants argue that investigative videos cannot form a racketeering enterprise. They also say the alleged conduct is not among the acts the statute covers.
Civil Stalking
Civil stalking is a legal claim that a person repeatedly followed or contacted someone in a way that caused emotional distress.
The plaintiffs plead civil stalking against the defendants. Schneider's separate criminal case involves visits to plaintiff Josh Johnson's American Fork home, where he says he tried to serve court papers from his own Oregon suit.
His motion to dismiss does not address the civil stalking claim, so it stays pending for now.
Trespass
Trespass is a legal claim that someone entered another person's property without permission.
The complaint includes a trespass claim, which the defendants' motion leaves unaddressed. The plaintiffs publicly allege that Schneider's team impersonated delivery and church personnel and placed signs in residential neighborhoods, according to CBC News.
Schneider's separate criminal cases are covered in the comparison section.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Intentional infliction of emotional distress is a legal claim that extreme and outrageous conduct was meant to cause, or recklessly caused, severe emotional harm.
The plaintiffs claim the video campaign and the confrontations caused severe emotional distress. The defendants respond that Utah law does not let a plaintiff recast a defamation claim as an emotional distress claim.
The motion adds that the claim fails on other grounds.
Civil Conspiracy
Civil conspiracy is a legal claim that two or more people agreed to commit a wrong together and that one of them acted on the agreement.
The plaintiffs allege that Schneider, Reckless Ben LLC, Mansell and Nguyen worked together. If the court enters the agreed dismissal of Mansell, this theory would rest on the remaining three defendants.
The September motion seeks dismissal of the conspiracy claim along with the defamation-based claims.
What Is the Current Status of the Reckless Ben Lego Lawsuit?
The current status of the Reckless Ben Lego lawsuit is a pending federal case at the motion stage. As of the latest docket entry reviewed, dated October 13, 2026, the court has not ruled on the defendants' motion to dismiss most claims. A briefing schedule entered October 13 gives the defendants 21 days to file a supplemental memorandum.
BAM Franchising, Inc. v. Schneider (D. Utah)
The case began in Utah's Fourth District Court and was removed to federal court on June 26, 2026, on diversity grounds. Judge Barlow's July 7 order required the defendants to prove the citizenship of Reckless Ben LLC's members, and a July 17 disclosure supplied it.
| Court | U.S. District Court, District of Utah, Central Division |
| Case Number | 2:26-cv-00593-DBB-CMR |
| Judges | District Judge David Barlow; Chief Magistrate Judge Cecilia M. Romero |
| Plaintiffs | BAM Franchising, Inc.; Ammon McNeff; Matthew McNeff; Josh Johnson; Brandon Best; Baker Bricks, LLC (dba Salem-Baker Bricks, Inc.) |
| Defendants | Benjamin Paul Schneider; Reckless Ben LLC; Victor Nguyen; Bryan Mansell (settled, see below) |
| Original State Case | Utah Fourth District Court, No. 260402353, filed May 27, 2026 |
| Removed to Federal Court | June 26, 2026 |
| Preliminary Injunction | Entered July 7, 2026 by joint stipulation |
| Pending Motion | Special motion for expedited relief and partial dismissal under Utah's Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, filed September 18, 2026 |
The defendants invoke Utah's anti-SLAPP law, a statute meant to stop lawsuits aimed at public speech. They seek dismissal of the racketeering claim and the defamation-based claims, plus attorneys' fees, and say they will file counterclaims afterward.
On October 13 the court let the defendants add evidence to that motion. The plaintiffs' 28-day response period restarts when the defendants file their supplement.
Has the Reckless Ben Lego Lawsuit Settled?
Yes, in part: the Reckless Ben Lego lawsuit settled only as to Bryan Mansell under a written agreement dated August 16, 2026. The claims against Schneider, Reckless Ben LLC and Victor Nguyen remain unresolved. The August 27 filing calls the deal a Settlement, Assignment of Claims, and Mutual General Release Agreement.
The filing states that no party admitted fault, and it reserves the plaintiffs' claims against every other defendant. The court filings reviewed do not state a payment amount, and a public statement from the parties called the deal a resolution of a private civil dispute.
The parties moved on August 27 for a permanent injunction against Mansell and a dismissal with prejudice of the remaining claims against him. The injunction mirrors the earlier restrictions and expressly lets him comment on the lawsuit.
No money judgment exists against Schneider. The complaint demands more than $300,000, and Schneider told NewsNation after the court order was lifted that Bricks & Minifigs seeks at least $1.3 million. That figure is his characterization, not a number from a filing.
The Mansell family's GoFundMe had raised more than $670,000 by mid-June 2026, according to CBC News. That fundraiser is separate from the lawsuit.
Reckless Ben Lego Lawsuit Updates and Case Status
Here are the latest Reckless Ben Lego lawsuit updates, drawn from the federal docket and news reports. The case is active, and most recent events are court filings. Searches for a Bricks and Minifigs lawsuit update usually mean this proceeding.
Reckless Ben Lego Lawsuit Timeline
Court Lets Defendants Supplement Their Motion to Dismiss
Judge David Barlow granted a joint stipulation on October 13 that lets Schneider, Reckless Ben LLC and Victor Nguyen file a 10-page supplement to their anti-SLAPP motion within 21 days. The supplement restarts the plaintiffs' 28-day window to respond, per ECF No. 49 in No. 2:26-cv-00593.
Defendants Seek to Add a September 27 Phone Call to Their Motion
The defendants asked the federal court on October 1 for leave to supplement their anti-SLAPP motion. They want to add a recorded phone call that plaintiff Josh Johnson joined on September 27. The defendants say the call undercuts the plaintiffs' claims, and the stipulation that resolved the request concedes nothing.
BAM Franchising Files a Separate Trade Secrets Suit Against Unnamed Defendants
BAM Franchising, Inc. sued John Does 1 through 10 in the District of Utah on September 25, No. 2:26-cv-00895, under the Defend Trade Secrets Act over alleged leaks of confidential franchise materials. The complaint names no individual defendant, and this page treats it as a separate case.
Schneider Describes a Legal Notice From Bricks & Minifigs
During a September 19 livestream, Schneider said Bricks & Minifigs lawyers demanded millions of dollars and control of his new Reckless Bricks store in Tucson, Arizona, according to Dexerto. He did not show the document, the claim is unverified, and the company had not publicly responded.
Defendants File an Anti-SLAPP Motion to Dismiss Most Claims
Schneider, Reckless Ben LLC and Victor Nguyen filed a 30-page special motion on September 18 under Utah Code section 78B-25-101 and following. They ask the court to dismiss the racketeering, defamation, false light, conspiracy, emotional distress and unjust enrichment claims and to award fees.
Provo Court Dismisses Schneider's Disorderly Conduct and Trespass Charges
Judge Stephen Schreiner of Provo City Justice Court signed an order on September 14 dismissing the disorderly conduct and criminal trespass charges against Schneider without prejudice. Prosecutors had asked on September 10 for dismissal in the interest of justice, and they remain free to refile.
Schneider Opens a Reckless Bricks Store in Tucson
Schneider opened a Lego resale store called Reckless Bricks on September 12 at a former Bricks & Minifigs location in Tucson, Arizona, according to Dexerto and the Express Tribune. A later report says he opened a second store in Sarasota, Florida.
Bryan Mansell Says His Lego Sets Were Returned
Bryan Mansell announced during a livestream on September 2 that Bricks & Minifigs had returned his Lego sets, according to a summary of the dispute on Wikipedia. The same day, the court extended the defendants' deadline for their special motion to September 18.
BAM and Mansell Ask the Court to Enter a Permanent Injunction and Dismissal
BAM Franchising and the other plaintiffs jointly moved on August 27 for a permanent injunction against Bryan Mansell and a with-prejudice dismissal of the remaining claims against him. The motion, ECF No. 33, expressly reserves the plaintiffs' claims against all other defendants.
BAM Announces a Resolution With the Mansell Family
Bricks & Minifigs announced on August 19 a resolution with the Mansell family through voluntary mediation. A joint statement said the deal was not an admission of liability by anyone, and Kotaku reported that Chrystal Law Gorman's separate suit against BAM was unaffected.
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 motion. The agreement followed what the filing calls a lengthy mediation.
Parties Cite Settlement Talks to Extend the Anti-SLAPP Deadline
All parties stipulated on August 5 to move the deadline for the defendants' special motion from August 7 to September 7, citing ongoing settlement negotiations. Judge Cecilia Romero tolled the deadline on August 6, and a later order moved it again to September 18.
Court Extends the Deadline to Answer the Complaint to September 2
Chief Magistrate Judge Cecilia Romero granted unopposed motions on August 3 that extended the defendants' response deadline in No. 2:26-cv-00593 through September 2, 2026. The motions were filed July 31 and August 3.
Reckless Ben LLC Discloses That Schneider Is Its Only Member
Reckless Ben LLC filed a disclosure statement on July 17 stating that Benjamin Schneider was its sole member and was domiciled in California. The filing answered Judge Barlow's July 7 order, which had warned that the case would return to state court without proof of the company's citizenship.
Schneider Publishes Part 3 of His Investigation
Schneider released the third part of his Bricks & Minifigs video series on July 8, the day after the court order restricting him was lifted, according to Wikipedia's account of the controversy. The preliminary injunction expressly lets the defendants discuss the plaintiffs and publish court filings.
Federal Court Enters the Agreed Preliminary Injunction
Judge David Barlow entered the parties' agreed preliminary injunction on July 7, replacing the Utah state temporary restraining order. The order bars threats, doxxing, impersonation and approaching stores or homes within 100 yards. It also states that the defendants may comment on the litigation and publish court filings.
Judge Barlow Questions Whether the Court Has Jurisdiction
In a same-day memorandum decision, Judge Barlow ordered the defendants to show the citizenship of every member of Reckless Ben LLC by July 21. He warned that the case would be remanded for lack of jurisdiction if they did not.
Court Issues Its Scheduling Order and Admits Out-of-State Counsel
Chief Magistrate Judge Romero entered a standard order on July 6 telling the plaintiffs to propose a litigation schedule after the first answer is filed. The court also admitted two Miller Nash LLP lawyers from Portland, Oregon to represent Bryan Mansell.
Parties File a Joint Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and Mediation
The plaintiffs, Schneider, Reckless Ben LLC, Mansell and Nguyen jointly moved on June 30 to convert the restraining order into a preliminary injunction and to mediate. Their filing says the defendants dispute the allegations and intend to assert counterclaims.
A Non-Party Viewer Seeks to Challenge the Speech Restrictions
A New York resident who subscribed to Schneider's channels asked the federal court on June 29 to let him intervene and to declare the restraining order expired. The docket later marked a related July 1 filing as lodged, because the filer had not been granted leave to intervene.
Schneider's Side Removes the Case to Federal Court
Schneider, Reckless Ben LLC and Victor Nguyen filed a notice of removal on June 26, moving the case from Utah's Fourth District Court to the District of Utah on diversity grounds. Bryan Mansell filed a consent to the removal the same day.
Parties Ask the State Judge to Narrow the Restraining Order
The plaintiffs and defendants jointly asked Utah Judge Tony F. Graf Jr. on June 24 to convert the restraining order into a narrower preliminary injunction, according to Dexerto. The judge declined to sign it, and a court note called one provision very broad.
Return of Service Filed on All Defendants
A return of service filed on June 15 reported that every defendant had been served by email or regular mail that day, according to the notice of removal. The 30-day clock for removal ran from that date.
Schneider Posts "My Final Message" Under the Restraining Order
Schneider published a video titled "My final message" on June 9, saying he could not post Part 3 of his series without risking jail. He had no chance to challenge the order before then.
Utah Judge Authorizes Service by Email
Judge Tony F. Graf Jr. signed an ex parte order on June 8 that allowed the plaintiffs to serve the defendants by alternative means. The defendants' motion says Schneider received the complaint and restraining order by email that day.
Bricks & Minifigs Announces the Salem Store Will Close
Bricks & Minifigs announced on June 4 that it would close its Salem, Oregon store permanently. It called the closure a mutual agreement to part ways with franchise owners Brandon Best and Josh Johnson. The company also published a timeline that blames the prior store owner for the consignment.
Patreon's CEO Refuses a Takedown Request
Patreon chief executive Jack Conte said in a June 2 video that Patreon would keep Schneider's page online despite a takedown notice from Bricks & Minifigs. Kotaku reported that the notice was sent on May 29, two days after the Utah lawsuit.
American Fork Police Say No Warrants Are Active for Schneider
The American Fork Police Department published a news release on May 29 saying no active warrants existed for Schneider in Utah. The release also posted officers' body-camera videos, and portions were redacted.
Utah Judge Grants an Ex Parte Restraining Order
Utah Fourth District Judge Tony F. Graf Jr. granted a temporary restraining order on May 28 that barred the defendants from publishing false, harassing or defamatory content about the plaintiffs. Schneider had no chance to respond, because he had not yet been served.
Bricks & Minifigs and Five Associates File Suit in Utah
Six plaintiffs, led by BAM Franchising, filed a verified complaint on May 27 in Utah County, Case No. 260402353. The defendants named were Schneider, Reckless Ben LLC, Bryan Mansell and Victor Nguyen. The complaint asserts damages above $300,000.
Schneider Posts His First Video About the Mansell Collection
Reckless Ben posted "I tracked down the thief who stole $200,000 of LEGO" on May 21, 2026. The defendants' motion reports about 7.9 million views, and the video launched the series that the plaintiffs later sued over.
Utah Charges Schneider With Stalking and Targeted Residential Picketing
Utah prosecutors charged Schneider on March 27 in Fourth District Court with stalking, a class A misdemeanor, and targeted residential picketing, a class B misdemeanor. Chrystal Law Gorman, the former Salem store owner, also filed her own suit against Bricks & Minifigs in Utah that day, per CBC News.
American Fork Police Arrest Schneider After Attempts to Serve Court Papers
Schneider was arrested twice in American Fork in March 2026 after visiting plaintiff Josh Johnson's home. The police chief later described four incidents between March 8 and March 12, and Schneider said he was trying to serve papers from his Oregon suit.
Schneider Visits the Bricks & Minifigs Corporate Office
Schneider went to the Bricks & Minifigs corporate office in Provo on December 10, 2025, where he confronted CEO Ammon McNeff, according to KSL. That visit produced the Provo disorderly conduct and trespass charges that were dismissed in September 2026.
Bricks & Minifigs Takes Possession of the Salem Store
Bricks & Minifigs took possession of the Salem, Oregon store on November 14, 2024, after what it says was a termination of the prior owners' franchise agreement. The prior owners dispute that account, a franchise representative made a video inventory that day, and the parties disagree about what happened to the Mansell collection.
The Salem Store Advertises the Mansell Collection
The Salem store publicized Ed Mansell's Star Wars Lego collection on Reddit on November 7, 2023, after his son Bryan agreed to sell it on consignment. The store's own promotional post estimated the collection at well over $200,000.
What Evidence Is Cited in the Reckless Ben Lego Lawsuit?
The evidence cited in the Reckless Ben Lego lawsuit consists mainly of video, public records and each side's own statements. The plaintiffs rely on the verified complaint, which BAM CEO Ammon McNeff and Josh Johnson signed under oath. Schneider's side relies on recorded footage and public interviews.
Schneider's anti-SLAPP motion cites a video of the Salem store on November 14, 2024, an interview that YouTuber Coffeezilla conducted with BAM's chief financial officer, and BAM's own blog posts. The defendants characterize those items as showing that BAM took over the consignment. BAM disputes that account.
Police body-camera footage is a separate source. The American Fork Police Department released edited videos on May 29, and a Reddit user later reported finding unredacted footage that the department says was released by accident.
What Did Bricks and Minifigs Allegedly Know About the Reckless Ben Lego Dispute?
Bricks & Minifigs says it did not know about the Mansell consignment in the Reckless Ben Lego dispute when it took over the Salem store. The company states that corporate never approved the agreement and that the prior owner, Chrystal Law Gorman, made it without authorization. It also says its records show she under-reported sales.
Schneider's motion disputes that account. It quotes a store video from November 14, 2024. In it, a BAM representative on speakerphone says the incoming owner "takes on all that consignment." The motion presents that remark as proof of notice, while BAM maintains it had none.
Gorman says the franchise agreement permitted consignment services and that BAM terminated her without notice. Her separate suit, covered in the next section, asks a court to decide that dispute.
| Party | Position on the Consignment | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Bricks & Minifigs | Corporate never authorized the consignment, and the incoming Salem owners had no notice of it | BAM statements reported by CBC News |
| Chrystal Law Gorman | The franchise contract allowed consignment, and BAM terminated her without notice | Her lawsuit, as viewed by CBC News |
| Schneider and co-defendants | BAM took over the store and the consignment, then neither returned nor paid for the sets | Anti-SLAPP motion, ECF No. 37 |
How Does the Reckless Ben Lego Lawsuit Compare to Related Cases?
The Reckless Ben Lego lawsuit compares to related cases as one of at least six proceedings tied to the Salem consignment dispute, and each has different parties and a different court. News coverage often calls all of them the Bricks & Minifigs lawsuit, so the table below separates them.
Schneider faces two criminal matters. In Utah's Fourth District Court, he is charged with stalking and targeted residential picketing over his March visits to Josh Johnson's home. Judge Thomas Low ordered no contact with Johnson except to serve court papers. A preliminary hearing was set for September 30, and the outcome was not found.
The Provo disorderly conduct and trespass case ended in a dismissal without prejudice on September 14. Charges are not convictions, and Schneider has not been convicted of anything.
The other civil cases pit different parties against each other. Gorman sued BAM in Utah, and a lawsuit by Schneider in Oregon small claims court seeks $10,000 worth of Lego from a Salem co-owner, per CBC News.
| Case | What It's About | Court | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| State of Utah v. Schneider | Stalking (class A misdemeanor) and targeted residential picketing (class B misdemeanor) | Utah Fourth District Court | Pending; preliminary hearing set September 30, outcome not found |
| Provo City v. Schneider | Disorderly conduct and criminal trespass at the BAM corporate office, December 10, 2025 | Provo City Justice Court | Dismissed without prejudice September 14, 2026 |
| Gorman v. Bricks & Minifigs | Former Salem owner alleges wrongful termination, asset seizure and defamation | Utah state court | Described by Kotaku as still moving forward in August 2026 |
| Schneider small-claims suit | Schneider claims a Salem co-owner owes him $10,000 in Lego | Oregon small claims court | Reported by CBC News in June, outcome not found |
| BAM Franchising v. Does 1 to 10 | Defend Trade Secrets Act claims over alleged leaks of confidential franchise materials | U.S. District Court, District of Utah, No. 2:26-cv-00895 | Filed September 25, 2026; defendants unnamed |
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Reckless Ben Lego lawsuit about?
The Reckless Ben Lego lawsuit is about whether YouTuber Benjamin Schneider defamed Bricks & Minifigs and harassed its franchise owners while investigating a missing Star Wars Lego collection. The plaintiffs allege defamation, racketeering and other claims, and Schneider's side disputes all of them.
Is the Reckless Ben Lego lawsuit a class action?
No. The Reckless Ben Lego lawsuit is a single civil case, BAM Franchising, Inc. v. Schneider, No. 2:26-cv-00593 in the District of Utah. It is not a class action or a multidistrict litigation, so no group of claimants can join it.
Who is suing Reckless Ben in the Lego lawsuit?
Six plaintiffs are suing Reckless Ben in the Lego lawsuit: BAM Franchising, Inc., Ammon McNeff, Matthew McNeff, Josh Johnson, Brandon Best and Baker Bricks, LLC. They sued Schneider, Reckless Ben LLC, Victor Nguyen and Bryan Mansell.
Has Bricks & Minifigs settled the Reckless Ben Lego lawsuit?
Yes, in part. Bricks & Minifigs has settled only with Bryan Mansell in the Reckless Ben Lego lawsuit, under an agreement dated August 16, 2026. The claims against Schneider, Reckless Ben LLC and Victor Nguyen remain pending, and no payment amount appears in the filings.
What is the latest in the Reckless Ben Lego lawsuit?
The latest event in the Reckless Ben Lego lawsuit is an October 13, 2026 order that lets the defendants supplement their September 18 anti-SLAPP motion. That motion asks the court to dismiss most claims, and the court has not ruled on it.
Is Reckless Ben facing criminal charges in the Lego dispute?
Yes. Reckless Ben faces stalking and targeted residential picketing charges in Utah's Fourth District Court, separate from the Reckless Ben Lego lawsuit. A Provo court dismissed his disorderly conduct and trespass charges without prejudice on September 14, 2026. Charges are not convictions.
Is the Reckless Ben Lego lawsuit the same as the Gorman lawsuit against Bricks & Minifigs?
No. The Gorman lawsuit against Bricks & Minifigs is a separate case in which the former Salem store owner sues the franchisor, and it is not part of the Reckless Ben Lego lawsuit. Kotaku reported in August 2026 that her case was moving forward on its own.