Product1 publisher2 min readPublished
Bricks & Minifigs cites Google Drive logs to unmask whoever runs The BAM Map
Bricks & Minifigs sued the anonymous operators of The BAM Map after filing two copyright takedowns over internal documents the site published. Its complaint swaps copyright for trade-secret and contract claims that point at someone inside BAM's own franchise network.
The Product Desk · Product desk
What happened
- BAM's complaint says Google Drive audit logs show the documents were downloaded by someone with franchise-level access.
- The first takedown targeted an internal BAM analysis of how Ben Schneider's reporting on a consignment dispute affected its stores.
- BAM is also suing Schneider under RICO, alleging he and Bryan Mansell conspired to extort it, and Schneider has filed an anti-SLAPP motion in response.
Compiled by The Product DeskSomething wrong?How this is made
Why it matters
- exposure Any current or former BAM franchisee who downloaded from the shared Drive fits the complaint's description, since it identifies the leaker by access level and not by name.
- constraint With no registered copyright, Techdirt says, BAM could not sue for infringement or seek statutory damages; contract and trade-secret law are the claims left that can reach the operator.
- cost Contesting the unmasking means facing Dentons, the global firm already running BAM's RICO case against Schneider and Mansell.
A franchise owner signs into a shared Google Drive and downloads a file. BAM's complaint builds its case on a click like that, logged to an account with franchise-level access [4]. In court, BAM is asking for its contracts and trade secrets to be protected [3]. If the suit works, what it actually does is name whoever runs The BAM Map [1]. Techdirt says the site posts its evidence and flags which claims are proven and which are only asserted [12].
Techdirt, which called BAM's case against Schneider a "ridiculous RICO suit" [9], wrote that BAM and the McNeff family behind it appear to have launched "a new censorial bit of SLAPP litigation and general lawfare" [14]. On volume, the record backs the charge. Counting the RICO suit, both takedown notices and the John Doe suit, BAM has taken at least four legal actions against Schneider, Mansell and the site [1].
Whether BAM has also declined to answer the substance is harder to establish from a single account. It did answer Mansell, with a settlement and a denial of wrongdoing [10]. By Mansell's count, about 28 of the returned sets were his, roughly 7% of the 387 that BAM's own records showed as unsold [2].
A franchisor deciding how to respond to a leak can sort its options on two axes. One asks whether the file would help a competitor or only embarrass the company. The other asks whether the dispute behind the leak is settled or still open. A useful file in a settled dispute supports a trade-secret case on its merits. Put the same file in an open dispute and the suit will look like retaliation, however sound the legal claim. An embarrassing file in a settled dispute can stay online. In the last box, an embarrassing file and an open dispute, the lawsuit is about the critic, and I think fixing the dispute is the cheaper move.
BAM's files fall on both sides of the first axis: Techdirt describes them as a mix of sales data and PR talking points [13]. Mansell's count of what came back puts the dispute in the open column [11]. I'd settle the consignment count before trying to identify the account holder. The cost is time, because the insider BAM says breached a contract stays unnamed while that happens [5].
What to watch
- A ruling on Schneider's anti-SLAPP motion in BAM's RICO suit, the first court test of whether BAM's litigation against its critics holds up.
- Whether the court in the John Doe case lets BAM obtain identifying information about The BAM Map's operators.
- The BAM Map operators' own account of how they obtained the documents, and whether it disputes the Google Drive audit-log evidence.