Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems2Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches3Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsiTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
BAM Franchising has sued unnamed defendants in federal court in Utah and is seeking records that could help identify and serve them. A September 30, 2026, report by The BAM Map says a judge authorized expedited subpoenas to Vercel and GoDaddy. That reported order did not decide whether BAM’s allegations are true, and the latest report did not say that the site’s operator had been identified or that the subpoenas had been served.
What BAM’s lawsuit alleges
BAM Franchising, Inc. filed BAM Franchising, Inc. v. Does 1–10 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah on September 25, 2026, according to The BAM Map’s reporting on the complaint. The defendants are listed as “Does,” meaning their identities were not stated in the complaint described in that report.
![[(Borg Bobby Music Marketing for the DIY Musician Paperback Bam Book : Creating and Executing a Plan of Attack on a Low Budget)] [By (author) Bobby Borg] published on (September, 2014)](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/4139Xt+5D4L._SL160_.jpg)
BAM alleges breach of contract and misappropriation under Utah and federal trade-secret law. The complaint describes the unnamed defendants as current or former franchisees, employees, or others who obtained confidential information through contractual obligations. Those are BAM’s allegations, not findings by the court.
BAM reportedly says its internal investigation identified at least one current or former franchisee as a suspected source. That assertion is attributed to BAM; the reporting does not identify that person, and no individual should be inferred from it.
#1 Best Overall
- THE CULTURE MAP
What records BAM sought
The complaint says BAM needs discovery from third parties to identify the unnamed defendants. The BAM Map reports that the requests named the host of The BAM Map, the host of bamopsmanual.com, Google, Slack, and YouTube. A September 28 motion sought expedited discovery involving Vercel and GoDaddy, including subscriber, account, billing, IP-log, and publication-related records.
These are distinct steps: BAM’s complaint and motion set out what the company alleges and wants to obtain; a court order determines what discovery it may pursue. A request for identifying information does not itself establish who operates a site or whether anyone violated the law.
Rank #2
- An introduction, listing the countries, area, population, elevations, and fun facts about the continent
- This resource contains teacher support pages, reproducible student pages, and an answer key
- 112 pages
- 92 Maps
What the reported order changes—and what it does not
The BAM Map reported on September 30 that Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead granted expedited discovery and authorized subpoenas to Vercel and GoDaddy for information that might help identify and serve the defendants. The reported order concerns discovery, not the truth of the claims or liability.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
- Authorized: expedited subpoenas to Vercel and GoDaddy for identifying and service-related information, as described in the report.
- Not established by that order: who runs The BAM Map, whether the allegations are true, or whether a defendant is liable.
- Still unresolved in the latest report: whether the subpoenas had been served. The draft subpoenas reportedly listed October 16, 2026, as their return date.
The complaint reportedly seeks damages and fees, but not an injunction. The reporting therefore does not describe a court order requiring The BAM Map to shut down or stop publishing.
Why BAM’s franchise disclosure document is mentioned
The BAM Map’s September 2026 report also quotes BAM’s franchise disclosure document discussing a separate case, the Schneider case. The document states: “The named defendants are not franchisees, nor does this action involve the franchise relationship. However, Franchisor believes that this action and the facts surrounding it is information that is material to the decision to enter into a Bricks and Minifigs franchise agreement.”
That disclosure concerns the separate Schneider case, not a judicial finding in the Doe lawsuit. Its inclusion is relevant as company disclosure context, but it does not resolve the allegations in this case.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What to watch next
The next meaningful update would clarify whether Vercel and GoDaddy were served, what records—if any—were produced, and whether later filings identify defendants or address the claims. The latest account cited here is The BAM Map’s September 30 report, which says it relies on the complaint, motion, and order; the site is directly affected by the discovery request. Until a later filing establishes more, the operator’s identity and the merits of BAM’s allegations remain unresolved.
Recommended Free Tools
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
