This needs to be repeated, because it’s almost impossible to comprehend the sheer audacity of the corruption. Donald Trump sued his own government, asking for $10 billion. Then he had his own government “settle” the case with himself, granting him a massive benefit (which many argued was worth over $100 million, based on back taxes he might owe). It’s just an astounding level of graft. While the judge initially suggested there wasn’t much she could do about it, after some former judges sent a letter calling the whole thing a fraud on the court, Judge Williams agreed to reopen and revisit the matter.

And has she ever.

The 56-page ruling is pretty harsh against the lawyers involved, though they well deserve it.

In the very first paragraph of the Complaint, Plaintiffs introduce their claims stating, “President Trump served as the 45th President of the United States, and is the 47th President of the United States.” (DE 1 ¶ 1). They then go on to state that “President Trump brings this suit in his personal capacity.” (Id.) After a review of the record, and the Parties’ statements, the Court declines to adopt or accept the credulous exercise of divorcing President Trump’s current job title from an understanding of what happened here.

But perhaps the most startling misstatement advanced by Plaintiffs is their characterization of this case as “ordinary.” (DE 89 at 9). The Parties here are not private actors to a mine-run dispute, recounting their proficiency in the art of the deal they negotiated. Lead Plaintiff and Defendants are public servants—the pinnacle of the Executive Branch—sworn to uphold the law, faithfully perform the duties of their office, and protect the interests of the American public. The issue before the Court is whether, instead, they ignored ethical norms, court rules, and legal authority to manipulate the judicial process. The issue is whether they did so to gild their efforts to gain unprecedented access to the public fisc with the patina of legitimacy. There is nothing “ordinary” about this case; it is the very definition of sui generis.

The court also calls out, in a footnote, the absolute chutzpah of Donald Trump’s lawyers, who whine that the former judges who got her to reopen the case only did so for “political motivations.”

Plaintiffs also—with no apparent sense of irony—criticize the non-party movants’ political motivations, their previous disinterest in the case, and their purported inappropriate promotion of “abstract grievance[s].”

The judge then goes through a detailed analysis of why parties are supposed to be adversarial to each other to get into court, and the problems that occur if that’s not the case. And also notes that courts can investigate if the parties are truly adversarial. And here, it’s not even close.

The Complaint purports to present a controversy between Plaintiffs—President Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump Jr., Eric Trump, and the Trump Organization, LLC— and Defendants—the Internal Revenue Service and United States Treasury Department—claiming Defendants caused Plaintiffs reputational and financial harm for which they now seek “at least $10,000.000,000.00.” (DE 1 ¶ 11; Id. at 26). At first glance, the Complaint seemingly satisfies Article III by establishing causes of action “arising under . . . the laws of the United States[.]” U.S. CONST. ART. III, § 2. However, closer examination reveals that a justiciable case or controversy is absent; Plaintiffs and Defendants are not adverse because one party controls this litigation. See Muskrat, 219 U.S. at 361 (noting that judicial power only extends to “actual controversies arising between adverse litigants[.]”). In reaching this conclusion, the Court determines that Plaintiffs improperly employed this lawsuit to justify a particular award in this matter—access to taxpayer funds and exemption from audits and other investigations—which was accomplished by leveraging control over Defendants.

The judge also points to the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in the Slaughter case that the president has basically full control to fire heads of agencies as further proof:

Here, Defendants are the Treasury Department—an Executive agency—and the IRS, the largest bureau of the Treasury Department. Both Defendants are unquestionably part of the Executive Branch and ultimately answer to its Chief Executive, President Trump. President Trump’s authority to appoint and remove federal officers as he sees fit is evidence of his ability to exercise control over Defendants. See U.S. CONST. ART. II, § 2. Article II explicitly states that “[t]he President shall . . . appoint . . . all Other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for[.]” Id.; see also Cunningham v. Neagle, 135 U.S. 1, 63 (1890) (noting that the ministerial officers are marshals of the United States who are “appointed by the president,” and are “removable from office at his pleasure[.]”). While the Constitution strategically allows “individual executive officials” to “wield significant authority,” such “authority remains subject to the ongoing supervision and control of the elected President.” Seila Law LLC, 591 U.S. at 200; see also Br. for Pet’r at 10, Trump v. Slaughter, 609 U.S. __ (2026) (No. 25-332) (“Article II requires that the President control all executive power—especially the authority wielded by agency heads, who are ‘the most important’ of the President’s subordinates and who ‘must be the President’s alter ego[s]’ in their agencies.”) (citing Myers, 272 U.S. at 133); id. at 2 (“Removal is the President’s indispensable tool of control.”). President Trump’s supervisory authority directly implicates two key individuals acting on behalf of Defendants: Scott Bessent, 22 the Secretary of the Treasury Department and Acting Commissioner of the IRS, and Frank J. Bisignano, 23 the Chief Executive Officer of the IRS. Plaintiffs cannot argue before the Supreme Court that Executive Branch actors “unquestionably exercise[] executive power, and must therefore be controlled by the Chief Executive[,]” Slaughter, 609 U.S. at 27, and then here, argue that the Parties are sufficiently adverse to establish an actual case or controversy.

Secretary Bessent, in particular, is subject to President Trump’s actual and direct control in both of his representative roles. First, as Secretary of the Treasury Department, Bessent is a member of President Trump’s cabinet. In this role, Secretary Bessent is “the President’s alter ego” in the matters of the Treasury Department “where the President is required by law to exercise authority.” Myers, 272 U.S. at 133. Consequently, Bessent is under President Trump’s direct control as an appointed member of his cabinet.

While the parties in this case pretended they were adverse to each other, Judge Williams points out that the DOJ’s actions in court do not match up with what you would expect the DOJ to do in any similar case from someone who was not the president, pointing to a different case — one that Trump’s lawyers had suggested showed that this case was legit.

Plaintiffs seem to suggest that the course of litigation in Griffin, supports their position on adverseness, claiming that the plaintiff in Griffin asserted “substantially identical allegations against the same defendants, arising from the same course of conduct by the same individual.” …. unlike this case, the Griffin defendants challenged the plaintiff’s allegations…. In Griffin, the defendants (the same IRS and Treasury Department sued here) contested the plaintiff’s privacy act claims by arguing preemption and, alternatively, the plaintiff’s failure to plead actual damages. Id. The Griffin defendants also challenged the section 7431 claim, arguing the complaint was a shotgun pleading based solely on conclusory allegations. Id. After the motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part, the government filed an answer asserting a sovereign immunity defense and denying several allegations in the amended complaint….

[….]

Considering the brief chronology, the silent docket, and Defendants’ deviation from basic litigation strategies pursued in similar cases, the Court must conclude that Defendants chose not to “advance an interpretation of the law as the position of the United States that contravenes” President Trump’s opinion regarding this lawsuit. See Executive Order § 7. It is clear that obeisance to the mandate of his Executive Order has been fulfilled by Defendants’ actions (or more accurately, inaction) in this case. Therefore, not only does the Executive Order demonstrate President Trump’s espoused control over Defendants’ conduct generally in litigation, it also demonstrates President Trump’s actual control in this litigation.

The judge also goes after Todd Blanche for claiming that there was no way for the court to review the “settlement” agreement, noting that they could have easily submitted it to the court for the judge to review:

The Court is extremely troubled by the testimony given by Acting Attorney General Blanche on May 19, 2026. In response to why the “settlement agreement” had not been submitted to this Court for review, he stated that “there is no judge” because the case had been dismissed and, therefore, there was “no mechanism” for reviewing the agreement. See supra note 13. While temporally accurate, this answer is, at best, misleading and, at worst, disingenuous. The Court was available to review any pleading by any Party at any time during this lawsuit. And if Acting Attorney General Blanche had thought the dismissal was improvidently granted or thought Plaintiffs misspoke when they said, “no judicial analysis is appropriate,” (DE 52 at 2), he only had to file an appearance and ask for relief.

And then there’s sketchiness of the lawyers involved in the case:

The Court’s conclusion regarding the Parties’ shared interest is also underscored by the circumstances surrounding the execution of the “settlement agreement.” First, the “settlement agreement” is signed on behalf of Plaintiffs by Daniel Epstein (“Mr. Epstein”), a former White House Senior Associate Counsel and Special Assistant to President Trump from 2017 until 2020. Notably, Mr. Epstein was never counsel of record in this case; the Complaint’s signature block identified him as counsel41 for Plaintiffs but represented that his pro hac vice application was “forthcoming.” (DE 1 at 27). Since no such application was filed with the Court, and since, in other matters pending in Florida and elsewhere, Mr. Epstein sought pro hac admission within weeks of filing the complaint, the Court can only surmise that Mr. Epstein was aware that he would never need to appear and litigate the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims.

That’s on “Plaintiff Donald Trump’s side.” As for “Defendant Donald Trump” well…

Second, the “settlement agreement” is signed on behalf of Defendants by Stanley Woodward, Jr., the current Associate Attorney General at the DOJ, and Acting Attorney General Blanche. Before he went to the DOJ, Associate Attorney General Woodward represented several individuals charged in connection with the events of January 6, 2021, at the United States Capitol.43 He also represented Walt Nauta, who was President Trump’s personal aide and a co-defendant in the criminal matter involving the return of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.44 Before his appointment to the DOJ, Acting Attorney General Blanche served as President Trump’s personal criminal defense attorney in several high-profile matters. See, e.g., United States v. Trump, No. 23-cr80101 (S.D. Fla. 2023) (“Mar-a-Lago Documents Case”); United States v. Trump, No. 23-cr-00257 (D.D.C. 2023) (the criminal case charging President Trump with conspiring to overturn the 2020 election and for attempting to obstruct with the election’s results before, during, and after January 6, 2021); People v. Donald J. Trump, No. 71543-23 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. Dec. 3, 2024) (the “hush money” case that raised allegations of President Trump falsifying business records).

The court points out that ethics rules for lawyers in Florida discuss conflict-of-interest concerns regarding lawyers who work in government and for private parties, and make it clear that government lawyers should avoid being involved in cases that might appear to benefit former clients — as obviously is happening here. The judge wonders why these government lawyers did not recuse themselves due to the obvious conflict. She even cites, in a footnote, the claim by the Justice Department that Blanche would recuse himself from any cases involving Trump:

As a Justice Department spokeswoman stated: “[Blanche] is recused from many cases before DOJ. In any cases that are still ongoing where he previously represented someone, he is recused.” Id. In this case, however, notwithstanding his prior representation of President Trump, Blanche did not recuse.

The court also suggests that the “get out of IRS jail free” card “settlement” violates the emoluments clause of the Constitution:

Moreover, the conferral of possibly millions of dollars in tax relief and corollary benefits potentially violates Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution, a limitation surely known by former White House Counsel and the current Acting Attorney General. See U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 7: “The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.”53 No sitting President has ever sued federal agencies completely subject to his control for monetary benefits, or any benefits that inure to him, his family, and associates. The failure of any attorney in this case to address, on this docket, the relationship of this Article II proscription with the benefits conferred by the “settlement” is a glaring omission that speaks to the control of the Lead Plaintiff.

Similarly, Todd Blanche then going before Congress to say the MAGA slush fund was dead also raises alarms, given that if he were truly representing the government independent of Donald Trump, and this was part of a negotiated settlement, wouldn’t both parties need to “agree” to adjust the “settlement”? The fact that Blanche unilaterally declared the fund dead highlights how this was one side negotiating with itself.

Another signal that adverseness was absent was Acting Attorney General Blanche’s unilateral repudiation and severance of the purported “Anti-Weaponization Fund” associated with this lawsuit. Two weeks after the dismissal, in testimony before the House of Representatives, Acting Attorney General Blanche conceded that the DOJ was “not moving forward with the fund, period.” Acting Attorney General Blanche’s decision, which has not been memorialized or adopted by Plaintiffs or their lawyers, demonstrates his confidence that he could speak for, and bind, both sides of this matter. This certitude supports the conclusion that the Parties worked in tandem and were never actually adverse. Indeed, “a party may not unilaterally repudiate a settlement agreement once it is reached.” Reed by and through Reed v. United States, 891 F.2d 878, 881 n.3 (11th Cir. 1990). “It is ‘hornbook law’ requiring no citations of authority, except common sense, that a contract once entered into may not thereafter be unilaterally modified; subsequent modifications require consent and ‘a meeting of the minds’ of all of the initial parties to the contract whose rights or responsibilities are sought to be affected by the modification.” Tropicana Pools, Inc. v. Boysen, 296 So. 2d 104, 108 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1974). Acting Attorney General Blanche’s apparent capacity to speak for both Plaintiffs and Defendants, sign a “settlement” document on behalf of all Parties to this action, and then repudiate part of that agreement, demonstrates that there was only one party whose interests were being represented throughout this case.

The court, tackling every angle, also points out that Donald Trump easily could have filed this lawsuit in the multiple years since the tax returns were leaked, but instead, waited until he was back in the White House and in control over the DOJ and the IRS:

Notably, had President Trump (and his then-lawyers Alina Habba and Todd Blanche) brought this lawsuit in a timely fashion while he was a private citizen, this litigation understandably might have been resolved in a 109-day time span. But that is not what happened. Instead, President Trump did not pursue his claims until he once again occupied the White House and had appointed his former lawyer, and the former lawyer of persons who are putative beneficiaries of the “Anti-Weaponization Fund” to prominent positions in the DOJ. These officials then negotiated on behalf of the United States, with his current lawyers, including his former White House Counsel to reach a “settlement.” It is risible to suggest that there was ever adverseness between the Parties.

The judge even calls them out for “saying the quite part out loud” in basically admitting that they were negotiating with themselves:

In dismissing the non-parties’ claims of collusion, Plaintiffs reveal the true position of the Parties and say the quiet part out loud: “Regardless of whether Plaintiffs had ever filed this action, the Government and Plaintiffs still had the power to resolve all disputes between the parties.” (DE 89 at 15). The power to resolve was never a question before this Court. Whether Executive Branch actors can privately agree to give themselves and their former clients blanket immunities and billions of dollars in tax monies for legally undefined grievances was never an issue advanced to this Court. The question is whether the Parties could do so by claiming to be adverse and engaging the legitimacy of a court proceeding. The answer is a resounding “no”: the Lead Plaintiff and the Government are one, a fully realized unitary interest. Because “Plaintiffs have no answer for the fact that the [L]ead Plaintiff, President Trump, directs and controls the Defendants[,]” this “renders this lawsuit non-adversarial, collusive, and jurisdictionally improper.”

And because this fact was so obvious and so insurmountable, the Court finds that this matter was brought for an improper purpose—to gain the imprimatur of judicial legitimacy for a “settlement” that had no viable basis in law or fact.

The judge then explores whether the lawyers should be sanctioned for filing such a sham lawsuit, and decides that they should be. The sanctions involve referring some of the lawyers to their respective Bar associations for review (including having the court clerk mail this ruling to the NY Bar in reference to Todd Blanche), barring Trump’s lawyer Daniel Epstein (mentioned above) from seeking admission in Florida Southern District cases for one year, and prohibiting both Trump and the government from referring to the agreement as a “settlement agreement.”

The Parties are prohibited from referring to the purported “settlement agreement,” or using, offering, admitting, or citing any of its provisions in any judicial, administrative, regulatory, arbitration, or any other official proceeding as evidence of a “settlement” reached in this matter

The closing summary is pretty direct:

John Adams warned, “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” Thus, whatever may be the Parties’ wishes, inclinations, or the dictates of their passion, they cannot alter the state of the facts or evade the rule of law. Contrary to Plaintiffs’ concern, the Court did not have to “sally forth” to look for a wrong to right…. The Court need only look to the uncontroverted facts here:

1. Donald Trump is President.
2. President Trump controls the actions of the Secretary of the Treasury Department Scott Bessent, IRS CEO Frank Bisignano, and all Executive Branch actors.
3. President Trump, through Executive Order § 7, also controls the litigation strategy and interpretation of the laws guiding the Department of Justice….
4. For the 109 days that this case was pending, no attorney representing the United States filed a notice of appearance or any document indicating the government’s position, interest, or awareness of this matter.
5. Defendants’ actions are consonant with the dictates of Executive Order § 7

These facts lead to the inexorable conclusion that the “settlement” terms, the individuals who signed the “settlement” as well as the putative beneficiaries of the “settlement,” demonstrate a shared, unitary interest. And the unilateral revision and renunciation of the “Fund” component of the “settlement” demonstrate the fact that all Parties were aligned, and ultimately, undifferentiated. This action was never about a party seeking judicial resolution of a legal issue or a factual dispute. The nature of the suit itself and the conduct of the Parties and counsel from its filing make plain that this was an attempt to use the Court to provide some legitimacy to an agreement to confer immunity to people and entities affiliated with the President and to earmark billions of dollars from American taxpayers to redress grievances not defined in the law. The President may be the functional “dominus litus” of the Executive Branch, but as a party to a civil suit, he, as well as all the parties and lawyers before a court, are bound by the rules. Ensuring that our courts are used only for the express purpose created by the Constitution is the obligation of every judge and an obligation that this Court must discharge in light of the matter before it.

Of course, Donald Trump (both as plaintiff and defendant) can still appeal to the Eleventh Circuit. But at least for this shining moment, we’ve finally had a federal judge look at this blatantly corrupt “settlement” and call it out for what it obviously was: the President of the United States suing his own government, using his own lawyers to create a faux settlement that benefits him and his friends at the literal expense of the American public. A “fully unitary interest” indeed. Just one that is focused on Donald Trump’s best interests over the American public.

Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackSocial. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

We already know ICE officers have gone out of their way to aim their phones at protesters and others who try to derail their masked kidnapping squads. And we know — thanks to public records and leaked documents — ICE has access to facial recognition tech that makes it much easier for officers to identify protesters and harass/intimidate them for engaging in their First Amendment rights.

So, it’s hardly a surprise that ICE has upped the intimidation ante. What’s surprising about this is that ICE has mobilized its own propaganda/intimidation force that (just barely) attempts to disguise itself as something else. This has been noticed elsewhere — at least in terms of ICE officers wielding professional-grade video cameras to document arrests, etc. — but this is apparently the first time ICE has decided to pretend its masked camera people are members of the “media.”

This is happening in Danbury, Connecticut, where ICE has recently intensified its evil for exactly the reasons you’d expect: Kamala Harris carried the state in the last election, the state has sued the administration multiple times, and state legislators have been pushing Yale to fight back against Trump’s politically-motivated extortion attempts.

Here are the broader details on this insult to American ideals, as reported by the Connecticut Mirror:

ICE has had camera crews accompany them on enforcement operations in other states, promoting its deportation efforts on social media. Some of the videos are similar in style to footage from the reality TV show “COPS,” and some include embedded far-right media outlets and influencers. But according to The Washington Post, ICE has used misleading footage, “muddying the reality of events in viral clips.”

The Danbury cameraman was recorded by members of Greater Danbury Area Unites for Immigrants, standing near a crowd by a state courthouse. A person is crying off camera, mentioning to ICE agents the person they apprehended had a heart condition. The agents soon get into their cars and leave, the cameraman pointing the camera at the crowd as the agents drive away.

That might seem about as innocuous as this version of ICE gets, but the devils are in the details. Here’s more from Dan Haar, reporting for the Connecticut Insider.

The woman from Ridgefield, part of a group observing and documenting ICE operations, rushed to Danbury on a June day, like so many times before in the 18 months of the second Trump administration.

This time, on June 4, she saw a different scene. ICE had more vehicles along Moss Avenue near the courthouse and a more open, less furtive presence. “Brazen,” she called it.  

“There is a gentleman running furiously up the road towards my vehicle and there was about four or five agents chasing him,” the woman, a U.S. citizen who requested anonymity for fear of retribution by the government. “He had a look of fear, or like terror on his face.”

And she saw something else. Arriving in vehicles with the ICE agents, then working alongside the agents on the streets, a couple of men with professional video equipment wore black vests marked “MEDIA” in large, white, capital letters. 

This isn’t just something saw and told others about. This was captured on video (albeit without sound).

This is a dude dressed like lots of ICE officers — kevlar vest, face mask, and something that could be charitably called “tactical pants.” Except this vest says “MEDIA,” rather than ICE or ERO or DHS or nothing at all.

This might give people the impression that actual press members are embedded with ICE. But only for a moment. First, as is pointed out in Haar’s column, journalists never identify themselves as “media,” because that term is entirely incorrect:

Technically, anyone wielding the tools of communication is using media, as both Yousman and Crawford pointed out. Media is technology such as video or pen and paper, not a job. 

That, to Crawford, is a hint that these are ICE employees or contractors, not independent news professionals. 

“In war zones, journalists don’t wear jackets that say media. They wear jackets that say press,” she said, arguing that the distinction matters. Using the wrong word shows that these vest signs are not there to do the normal job of protecting members of the working press in dangerous situations. 

Further distancing themselves from real members of any press entity are the actions of the people labeled “media” who trailed behind ICE officers. First, they were masked. Press members might wear masks occasionally, but only if they expect to encounter things like tear gas or pepper spray.

Second — and perhaps most importantly — embedded press members don’t pull this kind of shit:

A video shows him wheeling around to record observers at very close range, who were themselves making videos. In another video shot, he is shown quickly pulling up his mask as he rounds a corner and sees an observer’s camera.

All of this happened in the context of ICE’s general horrificness. What was captured here were the actions of ICE officers staking out a courthouse to make easy arrests of people just trying to adhere to the conditions of their parole, immigration-related or otherwise.

Dan Haar says what needs to be said: this isn’t America. This is something we’ve always considered ourselves to be above, right up until Trump decided to drag us all down with him.

Clearly, government agents, employees or contractors masquerading as members of the working press create confusion and erode the legitimacy of the independent media, while lending credence to government misinformation and propaganda. These are all hallmarks of President Donald Trump as we all know, but it’s still disturbing to see it paraded on the streets so flagrantly.

It’s just not what free countries do, certainly not ones with a constitution that assures freedom of the press. 

Trump is degrading an entire nation. Unfortunately, he has a sizable fan base willing to jack off into the nearest flag while cheering on his authoritarian efforts. This is just ICE being extra fucking shitty because it knows everyone in the administration is similarly supportive of their hostile behavior.

The state lawsuit, led by California AG Rob Bonta and filed in the U.S. District for the Northern District of California, alleges that the merger violates Section 7 of the Clayton Act, which holds that mergers that lessen competition or endeavor to ultimately create monopoly are illegal.

Larry Ellison’s efforts to gift his nepobaby son with two Hollywood studios in a year might be fun for David and other aspiring if unqualified moguls, but it’s likely to result in more problems than ever given the deal’s significant debt load and the steady hints of incompetence among Ellisons’ chosen leadership.

From the California AG’s announcement:

“Consolidation here not only leads to higher prices — it also leads to fewer opportunities for important stories to come to life, and fewer ways for audiences to encounter stories, ideas, and perspectives beyond their own experiences. In this country, no one is above the law. With this lawsuit, California and our sister states are fighting for free and fair markets, not rigged markets. America has no kings in government or our economy.”

California’s AG notes the deal combines two of the nation’s five major film distributors, leaving four major film distributors controlling over 85 percent of all wide-release theatrical films in the United States. The deal also combines two of the five major owners of basic cable channels (three of which are technically Disney), leaving just two companies in control of 59 percent of all basic cable in the United States.

Other states that signed off on the lawsuit include Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Washington. You’ll notice a broad lack of Republican AGs, despite a lot of pretense last election season that the GOP really cared a lot about antitrust now. Apparently a top Trump donor clumsily trying to dominate American media (with Saudi, Qatari and Chinese help) doesn’t qualify.

We’ve discussed at great length how these sorts of major media deals almost uniformly result in mass layoffs and price hikes in order to pay off the massive new debt load. Every deal involving Warner Brothers in particular, which now goes back a quarter century to AOL, have always resulted in mass layoffs, higher prices, lower-quality, corner cutting, and a lot of shuttered creative projects.

Such deals generally only benefit the extraction class, who, every time they’re out of fresh ideas, look to mindless consolidation to shuffle the deck, obtain tax breaks, and nab a brief stock boost. Execs then inevitably cannibalize brand quality, cash out (see: AT&T), then float off to the next effort with “savvy dealmaker” emblazoned across their resumes, outsized executive compensation in hand.

The state lawsuit doesn’t really touch on the foreign influence peddling concerns created by the deal’s Saudi and Chinese funding. That would normally be a job for the FCC, were we to have one that functioned in the public interest. The state also lacks any authority to challenge Larry Ellison’s efforts to dominate what’s left of U.S. corporate media, supplanting already shaky journalism with lazy right wing agitprop.

Paramount issued a statement insisting that antitrust law somehow doesn’t apply to it, while arguing any delay in the deal would harm consumers:

“The lawsuit filed by the state attorneys general, in the most generous light, reflects a fundamentally flawed application of the antitrust laws and is wrong on both the facts and the law. Delaying this transaction will only harm entertainment workers who have already suffered over recent years as technology has disrupted their livelihood and cost California tens of thousands of entertainment jobs.”

As hints of a looming state lawsuit loomed, Paramount executives seemed to get more and more desperate, jumping between falsely claiming opposition to the deal was “antisemitic,” to empty threats leaked to news outlets this week that the company could leave California if state regulators interfered.

A delay caused by the new state lawsuit isn’t likely to hurt consumers or workers. It is, however, potentially harmful for a very debt-heavy acquisition backed by Ellison, who is extremely over-leveraged on the AI hype bubble. Should the AI bubble pop during regulatory review, Ellison could be looking at a far less forgiving financial reality that makes his aggressive media ambitions less tenable.

The public polling around Kennedy has reflected this reality. Spineless senators who once supported him in the role are turning their backs. And then there are the warning bells being rung from people who were very recently insiders at CDC, such as its former Chief Medical Officer.

Dr. Debra Houry, the former chief medical officer at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), decried the direction of the agency under Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 

“I think the secretary has caused a lot of irreparable harm, and when you look at many of the polls out there, the trust in public health, specifically CDC, has decreased dramatically, over 20 points in many polls,” Houry told host Margaret Brennan in an interview that aired Sunday on CBS News’s “Face the Nation.”

“That’s really difficult to recover from, and when states are removing links to the CDC website and following other medical organizations, I don’t know how you build back that trust overnight,” she added.

You absolutely don’t and this is a point I’ve been making for many months. It doesn’t take much skill or time to destroy the trust the public has in federal health officials. That part is very fast and very easy, as Kennedy is demonstrating. But to rebuild that trust, to win back the faith of the public, is going to take years, or decades, or perhaps may never really happen at all. The consequences of the idiotic placement and confirmation of RFK Jr. to lead HHS is going to span decades. The nihilists who managed to put this current cadre of clowns into federal office may not understand that, or may simply not care. But that is the reality.

A poll conducted by Harvard University’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health and the de Beaumont Foundation’s Public Health Listening Lab from March 19 through April 1 found that 50 percent of 2,205 U.S. adults said they trust health recommendations from the CDC. 

In spring 2025, 77 percent of respondents to a similar survey conducted by the joint pollsters said they trust recommendations from the agency.

Whenever this country moves past the MAGA era, it’s going to have what might be the Sisyphean task of repairing all of this damage. And not just in terms of reestablishing good, sane health policies. That’s just part of the task. The other will be the public messaging that must go along with it. That is equally, if not more important to repairing all of the damage Kennedy has and is doing. It’s not enough to have good policy built on science. Someone has to actually get the public to buy into and trust in those policies.

And the public is going to be in a very reasonable place when they ask why they should trust the next government to not be anymore idiotic than this one.

The UK government continues to falsely characterize this policy as a necessary response to growing concerns about online harms for young people. In reality, much like the Online Safety Act, it will cause more harm than it will prevent. 

Users of all ages are burdened with proving their age before accessing content, with social media platforms such as Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, and X included in the ban. There remains no reliable, privacy-preserving method of verifying the age of every internet user and methods vary from one platform to the next.

Young people will not simply be protected from being contacted by adults or endlessly scrolling—they’ll also lose access to educational videos on YouTube, local events on Facebook, and potentially cut off from distant friends and family. 

Public policy must be effective, proportionate and respectful of fundamental rights. Young people deserve better than a policy built on panic, and all internet users deserve a safe and free internet. A social media ban generates headlines, but it will not solve the problem. 

A Brief History of Age-Gating in the UK

Age restriction proposals in the UK date back to a decade ago, when the proposed Digital Economy Bill was put forth to (among other things) restrict young people from accessing pornographic websites. While the Digital Economy Act of 2017 passed without age-based restrictions, it laid the groundwork for later age verification measures.

Over the next few years, age checks for porn websites were announced then delayed several times. But it wasn’t until a consultation under the 2016-2019 May government and the 2020 publication of the Online Harms Whitepaper that age verification became a broader idea.

In 2023, the UK passed the controversial Online Safety Act, establishing powers that could weaken privacy protections and freedom of expression for internet users worldwide. In July 2025, the government implemented age assurance measures on sites hosting “harmful” content. 

And despite politicians affirming repeatedly that the Online Safety Act would solve all of the problems with online safety, this year they decided it in fact did not go far enough. American social psychologist and The Anxious Generation author Jonathan Haidt—who has called for age-related social media bans around the world, despite significant scientific doubt about his research—met with the UK Health Secretary in February to push for the ban.

In March, politicians introduced plans for a social media ban into the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to “prevent children under the age of 16 from becoming or being users” of “all regulated user-to-user services,” to be implemented by “highly-effective age assurance measures”—effectively banning under-16s from social media. 

When this proposal came before the House of Commons, MPs defeated and proposed their own amendment: enabling the Secretary of State to introduce provisions “requiring providers of specified internet services” to prevent access by children, under age 18 rather than 16, to specified internet services or to specified features; and to restrict access by children to specified internet services which ministers provide. 

But the social media ban does not stop there. The provision also requires internet service providers to limit the time kids spend online, and has rules about who can contact them online. These extreme rules will take decisions about using technology away from families and put them in the hands of government regulators. 

The history of this proposal shows that the UK government has repeatedly returned to the same flawed idea: restricting access to online services by requiring age checks for everyone. But the fundamental problems have not changed. There is still no widely available way to verify age online without compromising privacy—but even if there were, broad restrictions on social media will inevitably limit access to lawful speech, and valuable online communities, and arts and culture.

Republished from the EFF’s Deeplinks blog.

Not only that, every single merger involving this particular company (Time Warner, Warner Brothers) in the last quarter century has resulted in nothing but layoffs, price hikes, shittier product, and a lot of whimpering. And there are ample signs that the Paramount folks are even less competent than past suitors, including the AT&T executives, who quickly got too far out over their skis.

While the Trump DOJ has unsurprisingly rubber stamped Larry Ellison’s clumsy effort to dominate what’s left of U.S. corporate media, states keep hinting at the fact they’ll file a collective antitrust lawsuit.

That’s certainly the case in Oregon, where Attorney General Dan Rayfield is asking for a 60 day pause in deal finalization while his office investigates both the deal — and apparently the Trump cronyism that has helped enable it. Rayfield, for one, accuses Paramount of refusing to adequately respond to state AG requests for information about the deal’s impact:

“We’re not going to let Paramount Skydance play hide the ball so they can rush through their massive merger. Oregonians have a real stake in this deal – in our film industry, in our economy, in the choices they’ll have as consumers. Paramount had every opportunity to hand over records and answer a few basic questions. Instead, it is trying to run out the clock and evade scrutiny. We’re asking the court to make sure Oregonians get the answers they’re owed before this deal closes, not after.”

Rayfield says that Paramount has been particularly cagey when asked for data on its interactions with the Trump administration and Trump DOJ. Including details on a federal government influence campaign Paramount internally calls “project warrior”:

“Paramount has not complied. According to court papers, the company declined to accept service of the request, waited weeks to respond, and ultimately sent objections on the day its documents were due – objections the state dismisses as a baseless tactic to avoid turning over the records. Paramount has told Oregon it does not intend to close the deal before July 16 but has not agreed to hold off any longer while the state’s investigation continues.”

So while the $111 billion deal is abjectly terrible, it’s not quite yet a done deal yet. I’d suspect that a joint antitrust lawsuit featuring the handful of states that still care about such a thing will arrive sometime in the next month or two. While it might not succeed in scuttling the deal, it could extend the timeline in a way that could prove costly for Larry Ellison, David Ellison, and their debt-riddled proposal.

Larry is comically over-leveraged on AI, and should an AI bubble pop coincide in significant regulatory delays for his media domination bid, things could get very interesting. As an aside, I’d like you to notice how when the state lawsuits come, all the Republicans who spent last election season pretending they were suddenly interested in antitrust reform will be absolutely nowhere to be found.

On Friday afternoon, Trump toured the luxury Boeing 747 plane that initially stirred controversy. The plane was one of the biggest foreign gifts ever received by the U.S. government and raised legal and ethical questions after Qatar offered to replace the presidential jet last year. Trump said last May he’d be “stupid” not to accept the offer. Industry groups originally said the plane could be worth approximately $400 million.

[…]

“This plane was transformed into a flying White House at a level of luxury that nobody’s ever seen before, probably even almost outside of an airplane,” Trump said. 

[…]

“It was time for a change. … Everything was designed good. It was my taste,” Trump said saying that he approved the new color scheme, which reflects the American flag.

Obviously, Trump is a fan. But the problem with this particular “free” Qatari-made Air Force One — well, one of several problems — is that is isn’t as secure as the original Air Force One, which was acquired a bit more honestly using only US tax dollars and perhaps a handful of no-bid contracts. The New York Times noted this in its report, after Trump flew the Qatar version to Turkey, but had to exit the country aboard the old Air Force One.

The new Air Force One, which President Trump flew on earlier this week to Turkey, lacks the same defensive countermeasures that were security features of the old model, including its advanced antimissile capabilities, according to multiple officials who have been briefed on how the jet was retrofitted.

Experts say the absence of those capabilities on the Boeing 747-8 aircraft, which was donated by Qatar, creates potential risk in using the jet abroad, a dynamic underscored by the abrupt decision on Wednesday for Mr. Trump to leave Turkey on the old Air Force One at the urging of the Secret Service.

There’s a metaphor in here somewhere, one that might point out that the corruption-adjacent Air Force One is as unfit for its job as the man who took possession of it on behalf of a nation that never asked for it.

While that reporting was definitely going to generate some Truth Social rants and official statements containing phrases like “fake news” or “failing New York Times,” pretty much no one expected it to generate subpoenas. But that’s the reality we now live in as the Trump administration lurches through the second year of its second term.

The Trump administration issued subpoenas on Friday to several journalists for The New York Times, after the news outlet reported this week on security concerns involving President Trump’s new Qatari-donated Air Force One.

The subpoenas — which seek to force the reporters to testify before a federal grand jury in Manhattan on Wednesday — were an extraordinary escalation in President Trump’s efforts to threaten and intimidate independent news organizations.

In some cases, the subpoenas were delivered by federal agents who showed up at reporters’ homes.

This isn’t America, I hear you say. But it kind of is, isn’t it? This is Trump’s version of America and the only thing that separates it from actions taken by other autocracies is that these reporters were only accosted by armed officers, rather than directly disappeared. Baby steps. Give Trump another year or so and maybe we can eliminate the relative niceties of merely threatening and intimidating journalists who publish articles the administration doesn’t like.

This follows other actions taken by this administration, like the search of Washington Post reporter’s house earlier this year as the FBI (allegedly) engaged in what what presumably an internal leak investigation. This looks like more of the same — the administration trying to force journalists to give up their sources so they can punish whistleblowers and leakers.

This was also something Trump was angry enough about that he actually managed to get FBI director Kash Patel out of bed/out of the nearest nightclub/sobered up enough to pull an all-nighter at [checks reporting] the White House?

The White House directed Kash Patel, the F.B.I. director, to oversee a leak investigation into reporting by The New York Times about security issues with the new Air Force One, leading to a flurry of subpoenas to several Times reporters Friday night, according to people with knowledge of the situation.

Mr. Patel scuttled a planned trip to Chicago and spent roughly eight hours at the White House on Friday, running the investigation from there rather than F.B.I. headquarters — a major departure from historical practice.

This is also extremely unusual. As it appears everyone in the White House has forgotten, the FBI and DOJ are not weapons to be used for politically motivated revenge. They are not foot-soldiers that serve the president. Both are supposed to maintain a certain level of independence, which makes it easy to avoid any appearances of impropriety. But those firewalls have been deliberately destroyed by an administration that not only doesn’t care if this looks shady as shit, but wants to make sure everyone in America — especially the administration’s many enemies — knows this is exactly as shady as it appears.

Things are only going to get worse from here. I can say that with confidence because nothing at all has gotten any better since Trump retook the White House. This administration won’t be happy until it has destroyed all the ideals the United States once stood for. The millions of MAGA faithful who spent Biden’s four years complaining they were being censored are now watching actual censorship being put into action. And, of course, they’re unwilling to speak up because… well, you know: “they came for the fake news and I said nothing, because I was an election denier, etc. etc.”

Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

When we first wrote about “Reckless” Ben Schneider and his valiant attempt to help Bryan Mansell get back the Lego sets (and/or money) he was owed from the company Bricks & Minifigs, we mentioned that almost everyone in the dispute should have talked to lawyers earlier in the process than they did. We had a lot of people get mad at us for making that claim, but I stand by it. Especially after Schneider has dropped Part 3 (after a federal court fixed the extremely problematic injunction from a state court that had blocked him from releasing it originally), and it again shows why Schneider really needs to hire a lawyer.

As lots of people are rightly noting, the video itself shows a ton of pretty sketchy behavior by Bricks & Minifigs and the cops — police walking a witness through how to invent charges while mocking Schneider, and Bricks & Minifigs caught telling wildly different stories depending on who was listening. And then, right on schedule, after the video came out Bricks & Minifigs followed it up with a new blog post on Friday that somehow makes things worse.

Schneider certainly knows how to make pretty viral video content, but representing himself in court seems particularly stupid, especially as he’s doing it here in a criminal case. He is right that the deck is stacked against him and that the prosecutors and the judge don’t seem to be listening to him or taking his claims seriously, but that’s in large part because he’s bumbling into court without a lawyer, and when he’s being asked fundamental procedural questions is telling the judge “have you looked at the evidence we submitted?”

Again, this might feel like the right way to handle a case where you feel you’re being railroaded, but procedurally, the court isn’t supposed to be looking at the evidence at this stage of the case, so Schneider making out like the court is treating him unfairly just misses the point that basically any lawyer could have told him regarding how cases like this proceed.

That’s not to defend the prosecutors, the police, or Bricks & Minifigs. While the video is (again) only showing Schneider’s side of the story, there are a whole bunch of things in the video that are incredibly damning to all three.

Let’s go through a few key points: First up: what the cops told Schneider about the charges against him, and what they were actually hiding.

Schneider plays some audio from one of the criminal cases against him (it’s a little unclear which one, since he suggests it’s the case in American Fork, but a screenshot he shows briefly suggests it may be the other case in Provo), where he says that the prosecutor and the court won’t even share what he’s being charged with, though the video clips don’t show that. Rather they show prosecutors trying to get out of providing body cam footage in discovery to Schneider, claiming that they’re upset he’ll make video commentary out of it. Discovery of evidence is not the same as knowing what the charges are, even if the evidence is related to the charges.

Even so, the claim is bullshit. The fact that Schneider might create public commentary with the videos is no excuse for not providing discovery. If that’s the concern, prosecutors can seek to have a protective order put over how the discovery materials are used, and if Schneider violates that order, then he could face contempt charges. Simply denying discovery is ridiculous.

But it’s the second case, out of Provo, where the bodycam footage stops looking like sloppy policing and starts looking like something much more problematic. Schneider was able to obtain bodycam footage from the police who were handling the charges against him based on statements from Bricks & Minifigs’ CEO Ammon McNeff. Again, we’re only seeing the evidence as selected and edited by Schneider, but it’s difficult to see how there’s anything else that would exonerate how the Provo police acted here.

They literally have one police officer talking to McNeff (repeatedly), talking about how McNeff’s original claim of extortion isn’t supported by the evidence but offering to help him find some other charges, and then asking McNeff to confirm specific elements to turn it into commercial obstruction. The police officer’s quote here is deeply problematic:

“We agree that there really was no extortion code that would fit your situation, however, you know, at the end of the day, we do want to help you guys so you’re not having to deal with this fool… [sigh]… all his issues. We did find that there was another code that fit and it’s called aggravated commercial obstruction….”

Having the police call Schneider a “fool” and saying they want to help find charges that will stick is not great. They then walk McNeff through what they need him to say/do to get such charges, including claiming that he asked Schneider to leave the Bricks & Minifigs premises multiple times and Schneider refused. Schneider shows his own video recordings (and security footage) that appears to directly contradict this — specifically showing that when asked to leave they did so.

There is one point where McNeff asks them to leave but then keeps talking to them anyway, so that almost certainly doesn’t count as a legitimate request to leave. And none of the footage Schneider shares matches even remotely what McNeff told the police. There is footage of Schneider (stupidly) saying “we can do this the easy way or the hard way,” which is not fatal to Schneider’s argument, but can certainly be read as a threat. In all these videos, that’s the one point that isn’t great for Schneider, though in the full context it’s pretty clearly a threat to release more videos and publicly shame Bricks & Minifigs. Still, that line hurts Schneider’s argument a bit.

McNeff also tells the police that Schneider threatened to burn the offices down, even though in their own civil lawsuit against him they admit that various threats have not come from Schneider directly but from some of his fans online. If Schneider had directly threatened them, you’d think they would have included that in the civil complaint. While most of the video evidence has only been selectively released, at this point not a single bit of evidence shows Schneider actually threatening any sort of violence towards Bricks & Minifigs (indeed, it seems that his whole schtick is to sort of do the dopey, hapless, inquisitor thing).

Based on the current evidence, it sure looks like McNeff just lied to the cops, and the cops not only took his side, but helped nudge McNeff about what he should say or do to give them enough to charge Schneider.

Not great!

Even worse, when the same cop figures out what they can charge them with, the body cam footage shows her laughing with glee. You kinda have to watch the clip directly (starting at 16:15) where the cop gets kinda gleeful that McNeff told her enough to charge Schneider with a second degree felony (Schneider falsely calls it a “secondary” felony). This is actually two separate clips from Schneider’s video, though it sounds like they’re directly connected to one another:

Cop: However, the tricky thing is is that we have to prove that this individual either entered or remains unlawfully on the premise. When he came to the property, did you have to ask him more than once to leave?

McNeff: Yes.

Cop: Okay.

McNeff: You know, ‘we’re not leaving until we we get it.’ …

[other video interspersed before cutting back to this exchange]

McNeff (trying to reconstruct the scene for the cop): ‘Guys, at this point, I’ve asked you to leave. Please leave.’ ‘Well, we we you know, like you have to listen to us. You have to pay us this money.’ ‘No, guys, you need to leave and you’re not leaving.’ Like, but I asked multiple times. They did not leave.

Cop: Looks like that might be a second degree felony. [laughs joyfully] He’s facing felony charges. It is a felony…

That is all… pretty damning. Later the same cop mocks Schneider’s first video: “I’m really curious if this fool makes any money doing this YouTube stuff?” Even later, she says to McNeff “well, I’ll keep my fingers crossed for you. Hopefully no more issues” and “there’s so many other things that this guy could be talking about, right?” Just completely supporting McNeff and dismissing Schneider’s side entirely.

Though I will note that Schneider also has a misunderstanding that “reporting a crime” (as he tries to do with McNeff) is “opening a case.” While police can investigate claims of a crime, until a prosecutor charges it, there is no actual “case.”

But it does seem overwhelmingly clear, from what’s presented in this video at least, that the police immediately believed and sided with McNeff and dismissed/ignored everything Schneider presents in response… to the point that they sent a subpoena to Google seeking a bunch of Schneider’s emails, communications, and other documents. There’s a suggestion in the video that McNeff got Schneider to email him just to get his email for the sake of the subpoena, though it seems clear that McNeff had other means of getting Schneider’s email address. Schneider points out that he emailed via the website contact form and had received a reply from someone at Bricks & Minifigs. And while McNeff acts like he’s never heard of that email address and it has nothing to do with him, that’s clearly bullshit, and he could easily talk to whatever employee manages that account to get Schneider’s email address.

Set the criminal case aside for a second, because there’s a parallel thread here that’s just as bad for the company: McNeff’s own claims about the inventory list don’t survive contact with reality. McNeff tells Schneider that he’ll happily share the inventory they did of the store they took over if he sends an email to the one specific address, and says he told Mansell the same thing. However, when Schneider emails that address and follows up, he receives this reply:

If you can’t read that, it says:

Mr. Schneider,

• BAM Franchising, Inc. will not participate in any form of communication that appears designed for public provocation, harassment, or manipulation of facts for the purpose of media content.
• Attempts to obtain privileged or confidential information through misrepresentation or the creation of fraudulent documents may constitute criminal misconduct, and we reserve all rights to refer such behavior to appropriate legal authorities.

Should you believe you are entitled to any specific information under applicable law, we suggest that you pursue such requests through formal and lawful legal procedures.

This will serve as our final response to your inquiry unless we are contacted by duly retained legal counsel representing a party of standing.

That shows pretty clearly that McNeff was full of shit when he said he’d be happy to email Schneider a copy of the inventory. And, sure, you can say that between Schneider visiting them and the time this email was sent they decided that they didn’t like how they were going to be portrayed, but there’s a pattern here. In the video Schneider releases, he shows McNeff saying “I think we have sent it to Bryan” in reference to the inventory list, and later says that if Schneider and Mansell get on an email thread together he’ll send it to both of them.

They also show McNeff going on TV news interviews claiming that they had told Mansell and Mansell’s lawyer that they were happy to work on going through the inventory list, but that Mansell’s lawyer stopped responding. McNeff said: “we’ve tried to share those with Mr. Mansell in hopes that he can see that we were not attempting — in any shape or form — to withhold anything. Those were then offered to him, and the initial offer was rejected.”

Except that Mansell has the receipts in the form of the email thread between his lawyer and Bricks & Minifigs, which seems to show pretty clearly a very different story. Even as we only see snippets of the emails, it’s hard to square this with what McNeff keeps claiming. The emails show Mansell’s lawyer asking multiple times how to get the money owed or the sets back and finally getting a stiff arm email saying that the two guys who Bricks & Minifigs handed the store to, “Brandon Best and Joshua Johnson, have no legal obligation to return any of the LEGO product.”

And then, even more damning is the closing of the email, saying “We consider this matter closed and will not be returning any LEGO products to you.”

That, uh, does not seem like a company that claims that it has no problem trying to work with Mansell to resolve this issue. Last week we mocked Bricks & Minifigs for having their crisis comms person send us an email about how the company was so eager to help make Mansell whole. That already seemed ridiculous since they’re suing Mansell for $1.3 million claiming RICO. But also, that was before we’d seen this email where the company basically says “shove it.”

Anyway, even as this is just coming from Schneider’s side, it’s hard to see how there’s any additional info that would acceptably square the claims made by McNeff with what’s been presented. There’s now plenty of discussion about how Schneider likely has civil claims he could bring against McNeff. Arguably he could also claim that the police in both American Fork and Provo violated his rights, but that’s likely an extreme longshot (not because the cops are in the right, but because it’s next to impossible to sue the cops for violating your rights).

Either way, we now know that Schneider has legal representation for the civil case, and hopefully that means he can also secure legal representation for the criminal case as well, because that would clearly be helpful. Yes, all of this is tremendous content, but your strategy in court when facing felony charges and your strategy for making viral content can (and should) be somewhat different.

Honestly, given how much attention this has gotten, and the legal help that has started to step up, there’s a decent chance that the criminal cases will go away, but that’s very much not the norm. Planning to go viral is not a strategy any lawyer would recommend for fighting criminal charges.

Anyway, while Schneider’s legal troubles play out, it’s worth remembering that Bricks & Minifigs certainly was not blindsided by Schneider’s Part III. They knew it was coming and that it was blocked by the broader injunction they had obtained in court. They knew that they had negotiated a pared back injunction, which meant Part III would be released soon. They basically had weeks to prepare a PR response to all the damning stuff that video was going to show.

And this is what they came up with.

The company released yet another tone deaf blog post on Friday, which talks about all the “changes” they’re making to respond to some of the criticism they’re getting. Half of them basically read as admissions of how badly run the company is. They admit that they’re going to work more closely with franchises (apparently they’ve recently jacked up franchise fees) and have put in place a “standardized inventory and trade system” effectively admitting that they had nothing before.

There are also some comments on the lawsuit that look written by the world’s worst crisis comms team. I mean, this is embarrassing:

Some have asked why Bricks & Minifigs hasn’t simply dropped the pending litigation connected to this matter. The answer is that accountability and integrity must run both ways. We remain open to a mediated, amicable resolution, and we don’t view litigation as the preferred path. We’re also not willing to submit to manipulation, threats and unsupported accusations.

That… doesn’t answer the question. And sure, fine, accountability and integrity should run both ways, but you’re the one out there claiming that you’re trying to make Mansell whole… while telling him you won’t give him any of his stuff back and then suing him for $1.3 million.

The blog post also suggests they have to keep the lawsuit going because Schneider’s conduct “has crossed the line from fair criticism into harassment, misrepresentation, and targeted harm.” But that’s Schneider, not Mansell. It’s also laughable given the footage that’s been shown so far.

And of course they try to avoid the fact that all the presented evidence makes them look terrible with this favorite line:

We will not try this matter on social media, and we will not use this statement to relitigate every disputed detail. Those issues belong in mediation and, if necessary, the legal process.

Again, that makes sense in certain contexts, but here where you’ve been running your mouth off constantly on TV show after TV show with claims that directly contradict what corporate actions and emails have said, it does the opposite of building credibility.

At basically every turn where Bricks & Minifigs could have made the situation better, they’ve dug in and made it worse. It seems like a bad strategy. So bad it’s even worse than going to court and trying to defend yourself from criminal charges without a lawyer.