You seem to be all over this thread trying to defend the company LOL Are you B&M corporate? If they have such a solid case, why did they lose the small claims lawsuits?
If you insist on not watching the "really long youtube videos" youll unfortunately have to settle for taking our word for it
There were 10x small claims cases against i believe the single franchise (L2 Bricks LLC iirc) which were won by default and might not stick due to them going chapter 11
You'd think that if there was a side of the story where the details exonerated the company, you'd think they would share those details. If they moved someone else's property out of the store, then surely they would be able to share evidence supporting this.
All we have to go by is the blogger's account, so that's the story. Just saying "there must be more to it" without evidence that there is more to it, is just vague speculation.
One discrepancy is that B&M says consignment was against their operating instructions, yet the former franchisee shared the franchise contract, which explicitly allowed it.
And that's the reason I won't. You can see yourself how insanely easy it is to find this info (you replied with one you probably found pretty quickly yourself), and yet these people who are full of quickly-formed opinions are constantly trying to offload the work onto others.
Beyond glaring omissions such as that one there's conflicting information between the linked article and what commenters here say the various linked videos contain. The article also lacks the necessary level of detail regarding the various legal claims, counterclaims, and entities involved which in this case are absolutely essential to understanding what's actually going on.
I'm inclined to believe that there's corporate wrongdoing but the piece itself comes across as a blatant attempt to stir up drama as opposed to objectively informing the reader. It's certainly not the sort of thing I come to HN for.
You seem to be all over this thread trying to defend the company LOL Are you B&M corporate? If they have such a solid case, why did they lose the small claims lawsuits?
Also, what about the false police reports leading to police brutality?
They havent seen any of that! It is so hard to find... No one has time for that when large corp must be defended.
[flagged]
If you insist on not watching the "really long youtube videos" youll unfortunately have to settle for taking our word for it
There were 10x small claims cases against i believe the single franchise (L2 Bricks LLC iirc) which were won by default and might not stick due to them going chapter 11
[flagged]
You'd think that if there was a side of the story where the details exonerated the company, you'd think they would share those details. If they moved someone else's property out of the store, then surely they would be able to share evidence supporting this.
All we have to go by is the blogger's account, so that's the story. Just saying "there must be more to it" without evidence that there is more to it, is just vague speculation.
> if there was a side of the story where the details exonerated the company, you'd think they would share those details
Here is that side, published last week: https://bricksandminifigs.com/blog/blog/2026/05/21/salem-ore...
And some further elaboration today: https://bricksandminifigs.com/blog/blog/2026/05/28/bricks-mi...
Besides the overall lack of information in these, they were also found to be lying in them
Tell us more please. Especially specifics about where do you see lies.
That user won't say. [1]
One discrepancy is that B&M says consignment was against their operating instructions, yet the former franchisee shared the franchise contract, which explicitly allowed it.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48318473
And that's the reason I won't. You can see yourself how insanely easy it is to find this info (you replied with one you probably found pretty quickly yourself), and yet these people who are full of quickly-formed opinions are constantly trying to offload the work onto others.
[flagged]
There aren't obvious holes. Most or all of what's been claimed as holes have just been straight up lies from B&M
[flagged]
Well, yes, if someone doesn't care to look for the full story then there will be holes almost by definition.
The common accepted meaning of "holes in a story" is not "I don't know the facts", but "the story itself is misleading or incomplete".
[flagged]
Beyond glaring omissions such as that one there's conflicting information between the linked article and what commenters here say the various linked videos contain. The article also lacks the necessary level of detail regarding the various legal claims, counterclaims, and entities involved which in this case are absolutely essential to understanding what's actually going on.
I'm inclined to believe that there's corporate wrongdoing but the piece itself comes across as a blatant attempt to stir up drama as opposed to objectively informing the reader. It's certainly not the sort of thing I come to HN for.