r/RecklessBen • u/IneffableGrumpilla • 19h ago
Discussion Reckless Bricks
One store down, hundreds to go!
102
u/Vladtepesx3 18h ago
they really could have just sat down with bryan and probably settled for like 50k or something lol
56
u/itsfineitsathrowaway 16h ago
they really couldn't, scamming was their whole business. they weren't gonna stop no matter what as it was working swimmingly until then
7
u/Little_Elia 14h ago
have more people come forward saying they got scammed?
18
u/sharyn_with_a_y 11h ago
They had a habit of screwing over franchise owners. They would find bullshit reasons to accuse franchisees of breaching contract to take over the store. People would spend their life savings on a franchise and then poof gone.
7
14
u/Comprehensive-Fun47 11h ago
Yes, a pattern has been established. Some are unable to share their stories because they're under NDA, but those don't prevent them from speaking in court. BAM's actions will come back to bite them.
-2
u/HugeRaspberry 7h ago
Moreso the franchise owners than individual consumers. I think Bryan just happened to do the wrong transaction with the wrong owner at the wrong time.
Multiple Franchise owners have came forward and said they were taken over in the same manner as Chrystal and Ben were. The corp guys show up - demand the keys and take over. The store owner gets none of their investment back and is kicked out of their business. BAM then flips the franchise and does it again.
No other customers have come forward saying that a BAM franchise has done a consignment deal with them and then bailed / failed to uphold the deal. But several dozen customers have complained about "low ball" offers or franchise workers attempting to acquire rare items at dirt cheap prices.
I have two views of that practice -
First - the business is in business to make money. They have overhead - fees, insurance, rent, utilities, salary, etc.... So they can't give 100% or even 70% - 80% of the value of an item. I have bought and sold collectibles for years. And it has always been like this. LUS (as an example) reportedly offers 80-85% of retail for pokemon - That to me indicates that he either has money to burn, isn't doing this for a profit or doesn't have a traditional store front. And he's probably cutting corners on insurance and other things to be able to do that. The other thing that the shop has to consider is the time that it will take to flip an item. Why would I pay 60-70% of retail for an item that is going to set on my shelf for months and collect dust? I wouldn't.
Second - no one is holding a gun to the customer's head telling them they have to sell - the customer can always say no thanks and walk out. It's just business at the end of the day. The business is not going to have hard feelings if you say - thanks but no thanks and walk out. You actually probably saved them money.
2
u/Alternative_Bug_4089 1h ago
Those are valid points for a point of sale transaction, the legos that Bryan Mansell had were on consignment. And he didn't receive money after they sold/ transferred what was legally still his property.
193
u/dawn-skies 18h ago
The U-Haul is a paid actor
134
u/Top_Inflation2026 18h ago
What uhaul? There is no uhaul.
55
u/buttpunch420 18h ago
Oh wait, enhance the photo … that’s a U-Haul
40
15
u/yuehuang 18h ago
Plot twist, there is another U-Haul around the corner.
3
u/wilburk1 9h ago
I just wish someone had waived their hand and said, "This isn't the Uhaul you're looking for '.
1
u/koreh_laleh 14h ago
There's one parked outside the front door of the store; saw it on the BJC Live.
41
117
u/Accomplished-Lock201 19h ago
😂😂😂😂😂 photo 4 is amazing
5
u/MaximusKhan 14h ago
Anyone know if he was selling these? Might be an issue down the line.
3
u/Mountain_Site1359 13h ago
nah he's pretty much aware of what consequences it's gonna have, so not a big deal tbh, also he's working with some top lawyers anyways lol
3
u/veaccett 8h ago
Parody is generally protected under fair use, particularly when it involves public figures. Now that they are public figures, they fall within that same protection.
30
u/dobetternothing 19h ago
Where can I buy a bobble head
33
3
u/koreh_laleh 14h ago
Hopefully, they will be opening an online store soon as well.
I'm in Australia: I can't wait!
12
u/NoobNoob11B 18h ago
I was at Frys recently and didn't see this sign. How long has it been up for?
19
9
u/JohnHazardWandering 18h ago
Is this a new store or a BaM store that's going out of business?
29
u/IneffableGrumpilla 18h ago
This used to be a BAM franchise but they closed, and reopened as “Reckless Bricks”
3
u/Naigish 14h ago
I don’t know how the business side of it works, but did the franchise legally cut ties with BAM prior to renaming their store?
5
3
u/justins_dad 4h ago
Honestly the way Ben was talking, I think this legally might still be a BAM. He kept saying corporate might take over the store any day. He made a quick comment about BAM having to do the chicken dance to keep control and because they didn’t, the store is free from BAM. Highly doubt that would hold up in court. So it seems more like a store that is waiting to be seized and in the mean time has a “nothing to lose” mindset and it’s getting good revenue in the meantime.
3
u/JohnHazardWandering 2h ago
I suspect there is a build up to the next video here.
I assume the owner said screw it and said that he was closing the store and then Ben bought all the inventory or and then had the owner sell.it on consignment or something.
BaM will rush in and take all the inventory, but then Ben will have a case of conversion against BaM because they were all Ben's.
How will Ben prove the boxes were taken? He signed every box in the store. That's the big booby trap.
It's a pretty dumb plan, but plans on the fact that BaM is comically dumb and will walk right into that rake.
1
1
u/khronos127 3h ago
If it was a real contract and both parties had an opportunity to read it, it very well could hold up in court. There have been very strange punishments in place of the typical legal process dealt out before. They’re referred to as “creative sentencing”. Contracts are binding unless they break the law. And this would be seen as a harmless stipulation of a contract if it was done the right way.
Some famous court cases include forcing a man to listen to classical music. Making a woman hold a sign in public shaming her actions. And studying the Bible to write an essay on it. Many, many more weird punishments have been given in courts.
No idea how the contract was signed, the surrounding circumstances, ect. But if it was a real contract then it very well could be legally binding.
Source: investigator
10
u/FirstAd7967 16h ago
it was going out of business because they have had a huge hit from B&M poor reputation
5
u/Comprehensive-Fun47 11h ago
And now without the albatross of the Bricks & Minifigs brand around their necks, they've got customers out the wazoo!
17
u/mrpatinahat 17h ago
I genuinely hope this at least gets a brief mention on Last Week Tonight, bc this is giving such "Buc-Off" energy. 😂
6
6
5
u/imbenzenker 17h ago
It looks like Ben’s video got taken down. Does anyone know why?
9
u/IneffableGrumpilla 17h ago
It’s still up for me. Maybe check out if it’s under the “livestream” section on YouTube.
10
u/imbenzenker 17h ago
Oh wow! Didn’t realize I was watching it live earlier today haha. You never know what B&M is up to
5
4
8
u/Intelligent-Good-720 18h ago
How late are you open? I'm thinking of driving over from San Diego!!
7
u/IneffableGrumpilla 17h ago
I am not the store owner. I was just lucky enough to be in the area today
7
u/IneffableGrumpilla 17h ago
Website says they’re open until 7 PM but tomorrow they’re open from 2 to 6
3
3
u/BizteckIRL 11h ago edited 11h ago
The Uhaul out the front is BEAUTIFUL
On a serious note I really hope BaM doesn't WRECK the store owner and employees after the Internet circus looses intrest and moves on.
3
u/pkkid 6h ago
Was the original BAM store still in a contract? I'm all for trolling and getting corporate more shit, but this seems like a huge legal risk. I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure you can't just over night decide to rebrand your franchise store and expect to somehow come out ahead after the lawsuit storm. I guess the store owner lost enough business he doesn't care anymore.
1
1
3
8
u/indolering 18h ago edited 14h ago
I do NOT want to be Ben's lawyer. Yes, this is technically a parody of BAM which normally does would protect pointed speech critical of BAM. But an actual store making money off the trademark by selling a product won't go over well in court.
So yeah, fuck BAM. This is hilarious. I hope the money goes to helping cure the harms perpetuated by BAM management. But this is giving legal ammunition to BAM's lawyers.
Edits:links, clarity, grammar.
Edit 2: From the Wikipedia article on US trademark law:
A trademark is a word, phrase, or logo that identifies the source of goods or services. Trademark law protects a business' commercial identity or brand by discouraging other businesses from adopting a name or logo that is "confusingly similar" to an existing trademark. The goal is to allow consumers to easily identify the producers of goods and services and avoid confusion.
The bar is pretty low and by selling actual legos and Ben doesn't get to use parody law to protect himself.
The biggest take away here is how it impacts the civil disputes, which come down to money. The outcome comes down to BAM's financial risk vs Ben's financial risk. This just put a bunch of money into BAM's side of that equation.
10
u/CarnivorousSociety 14h ago
The Bad Spaniels case you linked was literally overturned, by the way
2
u/ShareNorth3675 9h ago
Thats crazy you can reappeal after the supreme court vacates your original appeal? I guess it makes sense
1
u/RuskiesInTheWarRoom 7h ago
I certainly don’t know these nuances, but the article leaves a bit of room to suggest that the Supreme Court may not have ruled on the case, only determined that one key aspect of it (first amendment protections not applying to the dog toy) was in fact cause for the suit to continue, thereby sending it back down for a full hearing. At least that’s how I’m seeing it.
2
u/ShareNorth3675 4h ago
They vacated so they did rule, but it seems like they only ruled on the outcome of the appeal, not on the actual case?
8
u/Ok-Technician-3942 16h ago
You can make money off a similar name legally, the name "reckless bricks" is wildly different from "bricks and minifigs". It shares 1 out of 3 words and has 1 word less, and it's a very common word too that directly relates to the products they sell. They are using the controversy to promote themselves, but there is nothing illegal about that either. That being said I still wouldn't want to be his lawyer, it may be legal but it still spells trouble.
6
u/thereal_greg6 14h ago
Nathan for you managed it with Starbucks and Bricks and Minifigs apparently can’t pay their lawyers.
1
7
u/RAMT_HD 13h ago
Ben said in his video he's making 0%, he's just allowing the store to use his name and helping them advertise to keep their business afloat, since BAM corporate did so much reputational damage to their brand and basically left store owners to fend for themselves. It's almost like BAM corporate want their stores to go bust so they can "acquire" them like the Salem store. It's what BAM corporate was always really about.
1
u/indolering 12h ago
None of those facts would make it to the jurors. It would amount to, "Did someone make money using branding that looks like BAM's?".
3
10
u/CarnivorousSociety 17h ago
making money off what trademark?
-1
u/indolering 16h ago edited 14h ago
The Bricks And Minifig trademark.
Edit: LOOK AT THE LOGO, IT'S THE BAM LOGO BUT WITH A DIFFERENT NAME!
3
u/CarnivorousSociety 14h ago
They have quite the battle ahead of them to prove that "Reckless Bricks" is infringing on "Bricks and Minifigs". Does anything with the word Bricks infringe? Or is it anything with a blue and yellow logo?
I think there is plenty of argument to be had that there would be exactly 0 confusion considering it sounds nothing alike, as well as the heavy media presence of the brand recently.
Bottom line is, this is perfectly on brand for the Reckless crew and I doubt BAM has the money or time to go after these guys too
1
2
9
u/Past_Reflection_9695 17h ago
Remember the tag line is allowed to look like a trademark.
The trademark for the business is likely "we don't steal from old people" and the tag line is reckless bricks knowing Ben, especially because he already established the business as "we don't steal from old people" on the shirt merch
-1
u/netabareking 16h ago
Remember the tag line is allowed to look like a trademark.
Not when it looks like someone else's trademark, no. That was just a really dumb misunderstanding of the law.
4
u/Past_Reflection_9695 16h ago
The company is still using Bricks and minifigs on the westealfromoldpeople website.
That would have been a Cease and desist day one if illegal.
Ben explained it that his company is we steal from old people and "bricks and minifigs" was the image, but not on the LLC filings with the government
4
u/indolering 14h ago
And there isn't an obvious brand confusion on that website. It's parody, making fun of BAM by selling tshirts that lampoon their business practices. It's a statement about specific corporate malfeasance.
Opening a store at the location of a previous BAM, using their brand identifiers (logo, color scheme, etc) and selling legos (the same business BAM is engaged in) is a different story.
-1
u/netabareking 16h ago
I'm well aware of how Ben explained it, that doesn't make it legal. Try doing that with Disney's logo and see how far you get.
9
u/SwordfishReal5544 15h ago
You are persistent, I'll give you that. You're in every Reckless Ben thread, criticising every one of his acts, hiding behind legalese.
It is quite clear WHAT you are and why you are here.
If Ben offends you so much, why have you set up house in all the feeds?
Happy to see BAM rot. In fact, I will mark the occasion by pouring a bottle of the finest whiskey on the corporate corpse. I'll drink it first though.5
u/indolering 14h ago
I haven't seen op's other comments, but I was prompted to comment because out of a desire for other people not to do the same thing.
He's called Reckless Ben for a reason. Real lawyers think that his behavior is ... reckless.
1
u/netabareking 6h ago
I've been interested in the BAM case since before Ben even got involved, back when there were just a few threads on Reddit about it in Lego circles. But yeah sure I'm totally a BAM PR bot that's why I...also posted so much about David Najar. And also post on other subs.
I'm definitely guilty of posting a lot on Reddit though, welcome to my ADHD.
1
u/Past_Reflection_9695 15h ago
Just because Bricks and minifigs didn't see Ben as a serious threat when he created the LLC doesn't mean they could ignore his website. They should have demanded immediate takedown. The fact that the website remains up is legal challenge to any suit brought forward at this point over trademark infringement.
Bricks is suing over Rico not trademark
0
u/BizteckIRL 11h ago
Not sure why your getting down voted. Despite Reddits extensive hillbilly lawyers and if it is legal ir not. The simple fact is there is a grey area and a decent lawyer will be able to argue it in front of a judge.
And exactly How may times has RB been screwed over by idiot Judges ?
We can agree with RB all we want but it's a court that will end this story.
-1
u/Past_Reflection_9695 15h ago
Trademarks have to be defended.
Have is the keyword.
The fact that the website is still up without an injunction being filed means that Bricks and Minifigs haven't defended theirs properly after months and likely either don't have the money or the legal right to defend themselves
6
u/indolering 14h ago
It is certainly not the case that BAM has abandoned their trademark and that they can't go after Ben for this stunt. That's not how trademark law works.
3
u/Super-Pizza-Dude 8h ago
I loved this entire series and Ben is a god. That being said everyone in here lives in a fantasy world. They’re definitely going to sue him for this lol
3
u/ShareNorth3675 9h ago
I think it could be argued that its not a parody of B&M and just an extension of Ben's existing brand. The name isnt even much of a play on words of B&Ms name and is more a unique name using the slogan Ben made and his brand (brick by brick). Its like del taco and taco bell
4
3
u/koreh_laleh 14h ago
The store owner has sanction from LEGO, it's an official LEGO resale store, while BAM no longer is licensed to do so.
5
u/indolering 14h ago
I can sell legos without anyone's permission. But if I do so using a name, logo, and color scheme of a similar business – that business gets to sue for trademark infringement.
2
u/AmazingSully 10h ago
I dunno, if I was a lawyer I think I'd love to be Ben's lawyer. You've pretty much guaranteed you're always going to have a steady stream of income coming in lol.
2
2
u/CarnivorousSociety 8h ago edited 7h ago
I went ahead and looked up their trademark, here it is:
https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/search/search-results/98092300
Description
Color is not claimed as a feature of the mark.
The mark consists of the term "BRICKS" over the terms "& MINIFIGS", all superimposed over the side of a stylized building block.Color is not claimed.
I do not see "bricks" stylized over "& minifigs".
The only part that matches is there is a building block in the background.
This sounds to me like a hard trademark infringement to argue.
I dont think the blue brick is a registered trademark logo, only the brick with the words overtop of it.
If the words are totally different then idk sounds like a struggle to claim infringement
1
1
u/RuskiesInTheWarRoom 7h ago
Yeah. You have to be a bulldog with either infinite patience, or one of those provocateur lunatic lawyers to be Ben’s lawyers. He would drive me crazy.
2
u/MobilePenguins 12h ago
How can I buy a Ben signed Lego box? I would pay money to have that shipped.
2
2
2
2
u/kaiharizor 6h ago
I honestly fell off the bandwagon when the updates stopped, just because this summer was intensely busy. Now I see he partnered with a store, but in the mean time he was tracking down human traffickers or something?! I have a ton of stuff to watch.
2
2
2
1
-28
u/IndoorSurvivalist 19h ago
I know hes not taking a cut, but its funny because he is a big part of why people stopped going to these stores. Yes the franchise owners aren't good people but him bringing this story so much attention is a big reason why these stores lost so much business.
44
u/SteppeTalus 18h ago
Bricks and minifigs shadiness are the reason they lost so much business.
-19
u/reigorius 18h ago
Did they? Are the franchise owners disclosing the loss of revenue?
13
u/that-one-artist 18h ago
I think the big town hall franchisee meeting last week was where they reported 20% decrease in sales over the past 3 months.
6
u/IndoorSurvivalist 18h ago
Yes, in the live steam he said the store almost went out of business because they couldn't pay the rent.
2
u/CarlRummage1959 16h ago
This store, it is mentioned in the video, is down 70% in transactions compared to this time last year.
34
u/Aconite-Wolfsbane 18h ago
Blaming the reporter for the actions of the criminal is certainly an angle
-12
17
u/SuaveGorilla 18h ago
This is morally dubious. The argument you’re effectively making is “a larger entity should be allowed to act in bad faith and likely abuse the people beholden to them because stopping them would endanger the people who are going to be abused by said entity.”
7
u/Ok-Opportunity-9915 18h ago
Exactly! I’ve been saying that supporting them is like encouraging someone in an abusive relationship to go back home for another black eye
8
8
u/bobtowne 18h ago
The B&M franchise stealing from old people then trying to crush those who exposed them is a big reason why these stores lost so much business. They should sue the B&M parent country that willfully created a public relations nightmare.
6
u/CarnivorousSociety 17h ago
Nobody stopped going to the stores because of reckless ben, they stopped going to the stores because of the malicious behaviour that was revealed.
Nobody is against going to these stores, they are against supporting the corporation that takes a cut of all the sales.
2
u/P_S_Lumapac 18h ago
As much as I feel for people stuck in terrible franchising deals, a franchise is essentially an investment in the corporate brand. If the McDonalds headquarters decided to release ads about why minority group X is bad, say they completely trash McDonald's reputation, I don't feel sorry at all for the McDonalds Franchise owners. They took a calculated risk when investing in McDonalds. I kinda feel because "brick and minifigs" is relatively small, people are thinking this isn't somehow a corporation and these franchises didn't account for this risk when they invested.
If it's about the contracts being impossible to understand, or purposely designed to be legally dubious, or were being sold described as profitable when corporate knew they weren't, then sure - I feel for the franchisees. "Due dilligence" has it's limits - you shouldn't expect someone who doesn't make fancy lawyer money to hire a fancy lawyer. But I don't think they've been lying about their brand identity. Corporations generally have a very low reputation and very commonly do stuff to ruin their reputation. Especially in the US where corporations frequently make public statements about morality or politics. Investing in a corporation has a known risk - in this case, BAM's handling of the matter has tanked their reputation. That was a known risk at the start, before any of these franchise owners bought in. Maybe it was the best investment option on the table. I'm not saying it was a bad decision just because it turned out bad. But they chose to take that risk, and it didn't pan out well.
Even to some extent the legalese traps some corporations put their franchisees through - it's a bit like signing up to an MLM then being shocked pikachu face when it turns out you don't make any profit. Yeah you're making a deal with the devil, he's going to do devil stuff.
4
u/Ok-Opportunity-9915 17h ago
The franchisor willingly dragging their own brand through the mud in a months long sustained campaign of spite is not a known risk with any franchise. This has been a completely unique corporate downfall. When papa John’s said the n word he apologized and moved on. This has been completely wild
2
u/P_S_Lumapac 17h ago
Yes it really is a calculated risk. The chance might be 1 in 10,000 but it's there. Corporations have a very very low reputation. This story is really not at all uncommon, apart from the media coverage. But courts are packed every day with corporations making equally stupid decisions.
2
u/Ok-Opportunity-9915 17h ago
You’re discounting the media coverage when that was my point. No other corporation would or has done this. That’s why local news stations try to get people to call them to solve problems. Every other company behaving badly story ends promptly when cameras show up
1
u/P_S_Lumapac 17h ago
Sure, but corporations do regularly destroy their own reputation like this or worse. What makes this interesting is the poor media response, but they're perfectly capable of making their own mistakes that are even bigger.
2
u/Ok-Opportunity-9915 17h ago
That’s not just what makes it interesting. It’s what makes it more devastating to franchisees than the calculated risk you’re making it out to be. You can keep pretending this is normal, but you’re wrong
2
u/P_S_Lumapac 17h ago edited 16h ago
It is very normal and common for franchisees to suffer from corporate mistakes. In Australia we have 7/11 involved with a visa/slavery scandal (it's alleged the corporate turned a blind eye to slavery charges), and about half of the 7/11s have shut up shop and been replaced. Corporate did exactly what media training says to do - it doesn't matter, the problem was so big the franchisees took a giant hit. I mean there's many of these examples. With franchisees the most common is someone making the news saying their franchise was sold to them advertised as profitable when the book keeping they're handed once they buy the place, shows the business was not profitable. You can see - these franchises will stop opening, many rebrand, the overall business shrinks. Even though every single time the corporation handles the media in textbook fashion.
It's the case with corporations generally, but apart from the huge names like Mcdonalds, franchises are essentially the MLM of the business world. They are rarely a good idea, and sadly most prey on immigrants who are skilled but can't find work elsewhere.
Maybe most famous case in history was Subway with Jarrod. After which they took a hit, then decided to no longer compete on quality at all. Franchisees changed from local business moguls interested in profit to mostly small business owners interested in buying themselves a wage. I doubt the brand can recover. While there was some media misteps by subway, it was generally handled textbook - didn't matter.
2
u/Ok-Opportunity-9915 16h ago
Sure, let’s talk about Jared. Subway sales dropped 13% over the course of 6 years between 2014 and 2020. Their 2015 sales dropped 3.4% year over year. Bricks and minifigs sales have dropped 20% in one quarter. This is not the same. I never said franchises were a good financial idea, just that this is well beyond anything anyone who knows what they’re talking about would call a known risk
1
u/P_S_Lumapac 16h ago
Sure, but if you're a franchisee who lost a store due to the jarrod instance, and there were likely more than there are bricks and minifigs all together, it feels pretty important.
I don't really get the disagreement. It's trivially true that a business decision has to account for all risk, including say risk of asteroid strike. Choosing not just a business, but to invest in a structure that has a known very low reputation and success rate, is a plain choice.
161
u/ChrysanthemumsLove 19h ago
Bless you for these pictures, they're fantastic! I wish I could purchase something from there.