from the bricks-and-minifigs-and-influencers-and-lawsuits dept
On Techdirt, we often complain about lawyers and bad lawyering and bad cases. But there are times when lawyers are helpful, and my one-sentence summary after spending many days trying to understand a viral dispute about [checks notes] some old Star Wars LEGO sets is that a lot of people should have spoken to competent lawyers before doing… whatever the fuck they decided to do here.
If you haven’t been following the Bricks & Minifigs saga, congratulations on your peaceful existence. It’s a genuinely difficult story to track, partly because you have to watch a bunch of long YouTube videos to piece it together, and partly because almost everyone covering it is pushing a specific angle. Just as a point of reference, Bricks & Minifigs is a company that franchises its concept of stores for buying and selling lego blocks and sets — and, yes, minifigs. They have about 300 stores, most of which are franchised.
The basic summary (and some of this is disputed) is that a local Bricks & Minifigs franchise in Keizer, Oregon made an agreement with a guy named Bryan Mansell to sell a very large collection that his father had put together over many years of collectable unopened Star Wars LEGO sets. The intention of the collection had (we are told) always been to pay for college for Bryan’s children. His father, an 83-year-old man, had agreed to have Bryan sell the sets via the Keizer store on consignment. The collection was advertised, including on the store’s Instagram page where they made it clear that it was “one of the largest, most valuable privately held collections of Star Wars LEGO in the world” and that it was about to go on sale.
Later photos in that post detailed that they believed the collection was “worth well over $200,000” and that the entire collection would be sold through the store. The actual value of the legos in question is disputed, but the lowest number I’ve seen is closer to $60k. The entirety of the Instagram post text reads:
Saturday and Sunday, the 11th and 12th of November, the Bricks and Minifigs store in Salem-Kaiser will display one of the largest, most valuable privately held collections of Star WarsTM LEGO in the world. The event will be open to journalists and the public for photos before the collection goes on sale.
In the early 90s, Ed Mansell predicted Star WarsTM LEGO would be a good investment. Over the next 15 years, he purchased approximately $20,000 of Star WarsTM LEGO and preserved them, sealed, in their original boxes. The investment really paid off. The collection is now estimated to be worth well over $200,000. Multiple sets, including the highly prized, incredibly rare Cloud City set, are now worth more than $10,000 each. Some of the individual minifigs are worth more than $1,300 each. The ten-fold increase in the value of Mansell’s collection is a greater return than if Mansell had put the same amount of money into the stock market in a Dow Jones Index Fund.
When Ed Mansell decided it was time to divest, he turned to his son, Bryan Mansell. Bryan knows more about his father’s comic book and baseball card collection but didn’t feel confident in his knowledge of the LEGO secondary market. He saw the sign for the Bricks and Minifigs store while passing by on North River Road, came in, and asked the store owner, Chrystal Law, if she could help. “I told him, even if we couldn’t sell the collection, I would help him figure out how much it was worth because I didn’t want him to get ripped off. And I think that’s why he trusted me,” Law said. The entire collection will be sold through Law’s store, but first they wanted to put it all on display so the public can see it in its entirety.
The collection will be on display in the store’s party room from 10am till 6pm on Saturday, November 11th, and 11am till 6pm on Sunday. The collection will be available for sale immediately, so the best time for pictures will be Saturday morning. The collection will not be stored on-site after hours for security reasons, and after Sunday the sets will be available for purchase but stored elsewhere. Bricks and Minifigs is located at 3670 River Road in Kaiser.
Apparently, over the course of 2024, various parts of the collection were sold off and Mansell would stop by each month to collect his cut of the sales. There is a dispute over how much of the collection was actually sold before everything went off the rails in late 2024.
Advertisement
In November 2024, as you may have heard, Donald Trump was elected. Chrystal’s partner, Ben Gorman, runs a small publishing company called Not A Pipe Publishing, which (among other things) publishes something called the “Antifa Lit Journal.” Gorman felt like publishing such things in the US under a Trump regime might be problematic and looked into moving out of the country. As part of that, Law contacted corporate Bricks & Minifigs about selling or closing their franchise (exactly what she told them is disputed).
This next part is also disputed. Law & Gorman say corporate told them they had a franchisee who was interested in taking over the franchise. Bricks & Minifigs corporate claims that Law had told them she was shuttering the store and that she wasn’t allowed to do that, so they had to rush to reclaim the store. Almost immediately someone associated with Bricks & Minifigs, Brandon Best, showed up at the store, saying he was taking over the store and demanding the keys and that Law leave immediately. There’s also a dispute over whether or not Law & Gorman were in violation of their franchise agreement (Law & Gorman claim that the breach was due to failures by BAM corporate, which had been worked out months prior, and any claim of ongoing breach is misleading).
There’s a bit that is caught on video where Law tells Brandon and someone from the company on the phone that they have a large collection on consignment and that they owe Mansell money, and Bricks and Minifigs corporate tells Law they’ll “take on the consignment liability.”
Law and Gorman push back on Bricks & Minifigs just taking over the store, but are told by a B&M “official” name Ki McAllister (recorded by Gorman) that if they try to fight this, B&M will make their lives difficult: “If we go the legal route, it’s gonna be a very expensive battle for you and it’s not going to be a good position for you guys to get into. There’s not a whole lot of options for you. If you want to go the legal route, it’s just going to be a mess and it’s gonna be expensive for you.” When Gorman pushes back and asks if McAllister spoke “with” or “at” Crystal, McAllister admits he spoke “at” her and then says: “If you fight this, then you’re putting yourself into a whole lot of shit. It sounds like a threat and I can acknowledge that, because in a way it is.“
Advertisement
From there, it appears corporate Bricks & Minifigs transferred the franchise to two of its partners, Joshua Johnson and Brandon Best (the guy who showed up at the store) and they just… basically denied owing Mansell anything at all or even having his legos. Or sometimes they’d admit it and sometimes they wouldn’t. It became messy. Mansell claims that the people he spoke to store gave an almost identical message to him that Ki McAllister gave to Gorman & Law that it would be too expensive for him to go to court to get back what he owes.
Mansell then reached out to YouTubers, some of whom detailed how Bricks & Minifigs appeared to have effectively stolen all these lego sets. But then (according to one of the YouTubers) Bricks & Minifigs threatened to sue them (sense a pattern?) and they took down the videos.
Mansell then contacted another YouTuber named Ben Schneider, who goes by the handle Reckless Ben — best described as a Temu Nathan Fielder. He puts himself in ridiculous situations, goes to equally ridiculous lengths to justify them, and stares blankly into the camera with that specific combination of cluelessness and overconfidence that comes from someone who has talked himself into believing every move he makes is correct.
In this case, that included (not a complete list) trying to get back Mansell’s money and/or remaining legos by going to the store, confronting the employees, confronting the owners (who were difficult to track down), showing up at Bricks & Minifigs corporate, speaking to the CEO, setting up a registered religion in order to run a raffle for the lego sets to try to make this a criminal case to get law enforcement involved (not how any of this works), filing a bunch of small claims cases against the store and the company and the owners of the store, creating a company called We Steal from Old People, setting up a “franchise” structure for We Steal from Old People to use a mirror argument of Bricks & Minifigs that he can’t be held liable for franchisee actions, putting up signs for that store, and much more.
Advertisement
Some of these moves are interesting. Some are genuinely clever. Many are very stupid — particularly agreeing to talk to cops without a lawyer present after being arrested (more on that shortly), and believing that tricking a store employee into signing what she thought was a delivery receipt, but which was actually an unenforceable “contract” against trespassing him, accomplished anything at all. Mostly what all of this does is generate attention, rather than anything legally compelling.
The one potentially legally interesting move in all of this was filing the ten separate small claims cases against the store (I won’t even get into how they were able to structure things to file the ten separate claims even though that’s interesting, because this is freaking long enough, and the details are in some of the videos below). The store refused to show up in the cases, meaning that default judgments were entered in each case. When Schneider went to the store to try to collect, he found that the store had been permanently shuttered the day after the default judgments came down (which looks very, very bad for Bricks & Minifigs and the franchise owners).
The cops get called on Schneider repeatedly through all of this. When he’s in Utah trying to confront both Bricks and Minifigs CEO Ammon McNeff and the supposed franchise owners, Joshua Johnson and Brandon Best. He tries to take Johnson to small claims court and the court tells him he needs to first try to resolve the issue with Johnson, but Johnson (who at one point offers to give Mansell the lego back if Mansell apologizes, but then doesn’t) has blocked Schneider’s phone number and calls the police when he sees Schneider and associates near his house.
At multiple points the police stop cars that Schneider is in (one time after falsely claiming they didn’t stop at a stop sign, even though the dash cam shows they clearly did) and generally appear to be harassing Schneider and his colleagues. In what appears to be a tremendously egregious move, they pull them over and hold them for hours claiming that they believe there are drugs in the car which they search for and are unable to find. Later the cops get a warrant and raid the Airbnb where Schneider and others are staying, arresting them all.
Advertisement
Schneider and some of the others working with him are arrested at various points for stalking and harassment, while Schneider insists he’s just trying to serve Johnson with the papers from the small claims case. There’s also an attempt to claim that the Go Fund Me campaign that Schneider set up at some point violates some law. The whole thing goes off the rails in so many ways.
Schneider also gets access to various bodycam footage, some of which is redacted in places that look sketchy but happens all the time with police body cams. Some of the bodycam footage looks damning against the police (including a couple of admissions that they don’t really think Schneider and his friends have violated the law, even if the police chief later disputes that).
Very stupidly, Schneider and his friends/colleagues repeatedly talk to cops without a lawyer present. This is a very bad thing to do. Multiple people who were arrested later put up their own videos about it, including one (the guy who was arrested for trying to lock his phone when a cop tried to take it), who claims that he’s got a high IQ so was never going to get bested by a cop (this is also a stupid thing to say).
Bricks & Minifigs’ position on all of this appears to be that (1) anything bad that happened was because of the franchise owners and not corporate, both the previous ones and the ones they arranged to take over who appear to be closely associated with corporate Bricks & Minifigs anyway, (2) Law & Gorman violated their franchise agreement in many ways and the takeover of the store was necessary because of that, (3) that Gorman & Law “stole” Mansell’s legos and the new store really didn’t have any, (4) that Gorman & Law weren’t allowed to do consignment deals in the first place (despite evidence to the contrary, including the franchise agreement that lays out that consignment is acceptable), (5) that Ki McAllister is a low level employee and his statements don’t matter (not how it works), (6) that they didn’t know about any consignment deal (clearly untrue given video evidence as well as notifications from both Law and Mansell), (7) that Schneider is only giving a one-sided account (true, but doesn’t deal with many of the factual claims), and (8) that this is all an illegal harassment campaign against them designed to get them to pay out way more money than they owe (if they owe anything at all).
Advertisement
On top of all that we have competing additional civil lawsuits filed in Utah state courts and the various misdemeanor (not felony) charges against Schneider (though he claims he’s also being threatened with felony charges, though as far as I can tell none have been filed yet). Oh and the potential of criminal charges against… someone… in Oregon for the possible theft of Mansell’s collection.
Phew.
Let’s now insert some of the many videos on this. I will say that Bricks & Minifigs corporate (and the replacement franchise owners) come out of this all looking very, very, very sketchy. Ben Schneider comes out of it looking like both a hero for getting a tremendous amount of viral attention to all of this, but also kind of a dumbass for doing a bunch of very stupid things that he thinks helps his cause but don’t, which he could have avoided by… actually talking to a lawyer. Yes, Schneider got a ton of attention on the issue, but also did a ton of things that likely made everything worse for Mansell and himself.
If literally anyone involved had spoken to a lawyer at any point, an awful lot of this mess could have been avoided.
Advertisement
That’s why I’ll start with the most even-handed summary I’ve seen of the whole thing, from the always excellent Lawful Masses with Leonard French, who walks through the legal reality in exhaustive detail. It’s more complicated than any of the other coverage suggests, though yes, Bricks & Minifigs still comes out of it looking like people who took control of collectible legos they had no rights to.
Some of the key points highlighted by French that haven’t made it into most of the other videos I’ve seen:
Mansell should have filed a UCC-1 financing statement with the consignment to protect his property (this is genuinely useful information for anyone ever looking to sell things on consignment) but even if he didn’t do that, he’s probably protected by the “merchant exception” related to the Statute of Frauds. This is far beyond my own legal understanding, but is fascinating.
Mansell sent a termination letter to the new owners of the franchise, putting them on actual notice that the sets were his.
Mansell had a friend go in and purchase one of his sets after he had clearly informed the store not to sell one. As French points out, this is now a pretty clear theft case.
Bricks & Minifigs has some ways that they could (potentially successfully) challenge the small claims default judgments against them in Oregon, but the clock is ticking on that, and if they fail to, those judgments could follow them around.
Then as I was finishing up this already incredibly long article, I saw French has released part II, looking at some of the filed lawsuits that I discuss below and coming to similar conclusions that I do (i.e., no one comes out of any of this looking good).
Advertisement
Then there are some of Schneider’s amusing/cringey videos, starting with him talking about the effort to get back the legos. This is the main video that made this go viral and currently has around 3 million views.
He then published a follow up detailing how the police in American Fork treated him and his friends including stopping them multiple times and eventually raiding their AirBNB and arresting them.
Advertisement
And also a short video reading through and reacting to a leaked letter that Bricks & Minifigs corporate sent to their franchisees about how to deal with the controversy.
Then there are the American Fork police who released this bizarre video showing their side of the story, which appears to be set in… I dunno… heaven? John Oliver’s void? The entirely white background is a freaking choice is all I’m saying. So too is the “I’m reading you a bedtime story” tone of voice from police chief in the video.
The police chief also fails to address the weird redactions in the bodycam footage, and the multiple times his cops are caught effectively admitting that Schneider and his crew weren’t actually breaking the law.
Schneider has released a response video using a similar backdrop and highlighting problems and inconsistencies with the claims in the police video.
Advertisement
Then there’s Bricks & Minifigs CEO Ammon McNeff going on a livestream and doing a poor job of defending the company, including saying a few things that won’t do him any favors in court.
Believe it or not, there’s even more in all these videos that I don’t have time to go into, but we’re at almost 3,000 words already and we haven’t gotten to some of the competing lawsuits.
Advertisement
We have discussed the small claims cases (which have mostly ended in default because BAM folks ignored them) but the bigger deal are the competing lawsuits that have been filed in Utah’s state court and have received less direct attention. While it’s one thing to say things on a one-sided YouTube video, what you say in court can be a bit more serious. And we have two competing cases to look at. The first was filed by Law and Gorman and the LLC they had set up to run the Oregon store, and filed in Utah’s Chancery Court back in March.
It adds some useful details to the whole mess, including saying that the only breach they had regarding their franchise agreement with BAM corporate was… because BAM themselves refused to live up to the requirements of the agreement. Apparently Law had simply managed the store before this, but had approached corporate about taking on the franchise, which they agreed to do. But after working out a deal, the company failed to transfer the lease and the bank account over to Law & Gorman, which caused a bunch of problems regarding payments:
Shortly after the sale closed, BAM failed to fulfill its obligations to properly transfer the store’s bank account and assign the store lease to Plaintiffs’ LLC. These were not minor administrative oversights—they were fundamental obligations without which the franchisee could not operate the business. Without control of the bank account, Plaintiffs could not make the automated payments required under the Franchise Agreement. Without the lease in their name, Plaintiffs had no direct relationship with the landlord and no ability to ensure rent was paid. BAM’s failure to complete these transfers was the first material breach of the Franchise Agreement and the proximate cause of every subsequent “default” BAM later cited as grounds for termination.
BAM did not return the bank’s documentation needed to change account ownership, causing the account to be frozen without Plaintiffs’ knowledge. As a result, automated payments for franchise royalties and for the remaining purchase price were not withdrawn as scheduled.
Similarly, because BAM never assigned the store’s lease to BAMF Salem 1, LLC, the landlord’s notices of bounced ACH rent payments went to BAM as the tenant of record—not to Plaintiffs. BAM did not promptly inform Plaintiffs of these issues, effectively concealing the problem until it had compounded. Plaintiffs thus could not pay rent through no fault of their own: the lease was not in their name, the bank account was frozen, and the party responsible for both failures—BAM—kept Plaintiffs in the dark. BAM’s own Director of Operations later confirmed this failure on a recorded call, admitting that “the lease is technically in our name still.”
Advertisement
That is a pretty bad look. Especially given that, in BAM’s own lawsuit, they claim the reason they repossessed the store and handed its franchise to someone else was… the very things that Law & Gorman say they caused. BAM corporate’s massive lawsuit filed against Ben Schneider, Bryan Mansell, and a bunch of folks working with them (and, of course, claiming civil RICO because why not?) claims that they took back Law & Gorman’s franchise because of breaches to the agreement, such as those that Law & Gorman say were BAM’s fault n the first place (oddly, the BAM lawsuit refers to everyone by their first names, rather than last, which would be more typical).
Despite the foregoing plain requirements, Chrystal and Benjamin materially breached their obligations, as required APA payments were not completed, FA royalty payments became delinquent, the lease and various accounts were never properly transferred and lease amounts were unpaid. Chrystal’s outstanding contractual obligations mounted, eventually exceeding an estimated $175,000….
… Based on the foregoing uncured breaches and anticipatory repudiation, BAM, inter alia, issued a written 11/14/24 Notice of Immediate Termination to Salem LLC pursuant to the FA, exercised its priority rights to the collateral in the Security Agreement, pre-scheduled a repossession with Chrystal and repossessed the Salem LLC store on or after 11/14/24 and assumed the lease, as expressly permitted under the FA and APA, including any and all fixtures, inventory and other assets, and credited an estimated $38,000 paltry value thereof as an offset to the unpaid $175,000 debt.
That’s a pretty big factual dispute that the two courts are going to need to dig into.
The BAM lawsuit also claims that they had no notice of Mansell’s consignment, which is plainly bullshit given the video clip that shows up in basically all of the videos above:
Advertisement
Excepting only respecting the foregoing unpaid lease, BAM did so as a bona fide purchaser, without notice of any third party claims or liens of any kind, including Chrystal and Benjamin’s undisclosed and alleged 11/22/23 Consignment Agreement with Brian, referenced infra.
Prior to and at the time of repossession, BAM’s representative, Brandon, conducted an informal and video inventory of the Salem LLC fixtures and inventory. While he did not locate or identify any product that was identified as consigned or not owned by Salem LLC, he concluded that the maximum value of any residual inventory was less than $38,000. Less than $5,000 worth of Star Wars LEGO product could be located and identified in the entire residual Salem LLC onsite inventory.
This is quite a claim to make given the video evidence to the contrary, which had already gone viral by the time this lawsuit was filed last week.
There are other claims in the BAM lawsuit that seem problematic including this:
Bryan showed up later that day and began yelling at personnel and holding up purported consignment paperwork demanding the immediate return thereof or payment of $80,000. Josh interceded and asked to review it and briefly did so and pointed out that neither BAM (nor Josh and Brandon) were a party to this purported arrangement.
Again, taking over the store also meant taking over the consignment liability, which they had already been made aware of and which they admitted they were taking over (as recorded in the security camera video). That they hadn’t personally been a party to the arrangement doesn’t matter, because when they took over the franchise they also took over that agreement.
Advertisement
The complaint then says that Johnson and Best tried to find the alleged sets owned by Mansell but were unable to do so, concluding that they were all gone. This is, obviously, contested by Mansell and others who have pointed to evidence that the sets were still in the store, including Mansell having someone go in and purchase one of the sets after he had demanded them back in a written notification.
The complaint also claims that it was only in late 2025 and early 2026 that Best was able to dig into the old franchise’s accounting system to find details of sales of what were likely many of Mansell’s legos. The complaint argues that it appears most, if not all, were sold by Law prior to the takeover and if Mansell is owed money, it’s from Law and Gorman.
Many months later in the fall of 2025, and only after Baker Salem had entered its 3/27/25 Business and Asset Purchase Agreement, Brandon gained access to Salem LLC’s archived and incomplete POS accounting system, which he discovered identified Star Wars “lot sets” from Star Wars regular “lots” inventory sales. This inventory sale distinction was unclear to Brandon and Josh, and Chrystal had never explained the significance, if any, to anyone, but Brandon much later in 2026 discovered that approximately 367 purchases of lot sets (for an estimated retail value of $46,000) and 336 purchase of lots (for an estimated retail value of $12,600) had occurred after 2023. He still could not, however, confirm the specific products sold (and whether they had been consigned or not).
Then we get the RICO claims. The supposed “conspiracy”:
Upon information and belief, though they had no legitimate legal recourse or evidence upon which to file a claim, Chrystal, Benjamin and Bryan conspired to, inter alia, threaten, intimidate, extort and defraud Plaintiffs anyway possible, as detailed herein, including the formation of an Enterprise to engage in wrongful activities.
As an initial step, Salem LLC caused a 12/24/24 legal demand letter to be sent to BAM, variously alleging it had been damaged based on the termination of its FA, which was a private business matter between Chrystal and Salem LLC. On 1/10/25, BAM responded, denying the allegations and providing support for its termination. Neither Salem LLC, nor Chrystal or Benjamin, thereafter pursued any claim in the letter further with BAM until 1/2/26, when a separate legal demand letter was sent, as discussed infra.
Advertisement
Instead, upon information and belief and in furtherance of such threats, Chrystal, Benjamin and/or Bryan learned of Schneider and communicated with him, whereby they provided information regarding their unsupported claims against Baker Salem and/or BAM, ignoring and excluding Salem LLC and/or Chrystal’s sole obligation regarding any private consignment agreement with Bryan. In connection therewith, they, together with others (i.e., DOES 1-15) conspired to intentionally, maliciously, fraudulently and illegally threaten, extort, harass, profiteer, interfere with and damage Plaintiffs in furtherance of the Enterprise, including based on the unlawful activities described herein.
Upon information and belief, Schneider and the Schneider Group acquired a direct or indirect financial interest in Bryan, Chrystal, Benjamin and/or Salem LLC’s unsupported claims against Plaintiffs, whereby co-Defendants (with Bryan, Chrystal, Benjamin and/or Salem LLC’s assistance and support) organized and established the Enterprise that would launch a campaign of deception, disinformation and destruction intended to cause Plaintiffs injury and damage, to extort a demand of over $200,000, to deceive and manipulate Plaintiffs, to interfere with Plaintiffs economic and family relations, to harass Plaintiffs, to cause private and public nuisances, to trespass and to otherwise engage in a pattern of unlawful activities, as described herein.
They then claim that this “enterprise” engaged in numerous “unlawful activities” in support of the supposed conspiracy:
Commencing after Baker Salem began operations as a new franchisee and continuing to date, Schneider and the Schneider Group (with the support of Bryan and Chrystal) waged a malicious and intentional campaign of extortion and destruction through independent episodes of unlawful activities against Plaintiffs. Such included periodic harassment through phone calls, numerous disruptive store or office visits, repeated instances of trespass, deceptively staged events (i.e., disingenuous coronation, rally, raffle, store front table promotion, a fictitious Lego Club rally, manufactured and frivolous complaints to police, private and public nuisances, threatening phone calls, numerous deceptive live and telephonic impersonations, in person and remote threats (and via proxies), frivolous sham lawsuits (splitting claims in multiple ineffective small claims actions), etc.), issuing the Publications of defamatory and disparaging images and content, all in furtherance of the Enterprise.
The complaint quotes Schneider’s viral video in ways that… Schneider himself made easy for them to quote. The “we have to do something illegal” is not a great line for Schneider and the other defendants in this case. They also highlight this bit, which is also not a great fact for Schneider:
Advertisement
5/21/26 YouTube Video, Minute 12:46 through 14:46 (Schneider attempted extortion and directly threatened Ammon by stating that, “if you just want to give it back now, it’s going to be a lot easier for you guys. You know, I think you guys would prefer the easy way” or “the hard way. I don’t think you guys are really going to like it”. An implied depiction of the threatened violence associated with the “hard way” is an explosion at BAM’s corporate headquarters).
Of course it’s a bit rich for them to complain about the “easy or hard way” complaint when they apparently made similar statements to Law & Gorman as well as Mansell.
Once again, so so so much of all of this could have been avoided if either side had competent lawyers and listened to them.
Johnson and Best also claim that they tried to settle with Mansell and he rejected their offer, which they claim is evidence that “the enterprise” was seeking more than they were legitimately entitled to:
In late 2025 and based on co-Defendants’ ongoing harassment, Brandon and Josh further investigated the Baker Salem store inventory, and though they still could not reliably identify any product that appeared to belong to Bryan, they located a few (approximately 20) Star Wars LEGO sets in a back office lockable cupboard, on which they noticed stickers not previously recognized. As a precaution only, but still without knowledge that Bryan in fact had any right thereto, they directed that such not be sold from Baker Salem’s inventory and remain locked up pending completion of their ongoing investigation and receipt of reliable evidence of ownership and other conditions.
On or about 12/3/25, in a text exchange between Josh and Bryan (deceptively orchestrated by Schneider) and after sustaining incredible business disruption and harm, Josh discussed a possible settlement scenario under economic duress. Purely as an accommodation (and without any legal obligation to do so), Josh discussed a possible settlement scenario to allow Bryan to retrieve the few sets that had been provisionally identified as merely Star Wars related product in the back office (i.e., described above, though not necessarily belonging to Bryan), which as a precautionary matter, Josh had set aside pending receipt of ownership documentation from Bryan. Josh indicated a written apology and other concessions would need to be made and the harassment must stop. Bryan rejected this proposal outright and responded, “Unless you are going to make us whole on the whole Lego collection, I don’t see where we have anything to discuss.” This confirmed the Enterprise’s interest. Referring to the sets he had identified, Josh replied, “We can give you what was left when [presumably Chrystal] left. We can’t and aren’t responsible for what she sold the two years yall were working together. If you want what she left let me know.” Bryan refused this offer. This exchange further evidenced Bryan’s objectives were not about recovering a LEGO collection, but rather about extorting payment for the Enterprise beyond any legitimate claim.
Advertisement
That argument may sound good to the BAM folks, but I’m pretty sure they’re wrong when they claim they’re not responsible for what Law sold prior to them taking over, because (again) when they took over the store they took on any liabilities with the store. And that would be one of them. Also, there appears to be some evidence in the videos that some of the times they offered to return Mansell’s legos and then… didn’t.
Believe it or not, the 5,000+ words I’ve already written here barely scratches the surface.
Strip it all back and the core of this is pretty simple: an 83-year-old man’s carefully assembled lego collection — built over 15 years, meant to fund his grandkids’ college — appears to have been taken (at least in part) by people who calculated that it would cost more to fight them than to walk away. That bet almost paid off. The only reason this became a national story is that Bryan Mansell found someone willing to be very, very extremely online about it.
But “going viral” is not a legal strategy. And Schneider’s willingness to do basically anything for content — including things that are genuinely legally stupid, like talking to cops without a lawyer present, or making statements on camera that now appear in a civil RICO complaint — may have made things considerably worse for Mansell in the long run, even as it made things considerably more uncomfortable for Bricks & Minifigs in the short run. If Schneider had talked to a lawyer before doing half of what he did, he might have accomplished more with less collateral damage.
Advertisement
Though it might not have made such “good content.”
Meanwhile, if Bricks & Minifigs had talked to a lawyer — a good one, not just whoever is filing these complaints — they might have been advised that explicitly threatening people on recorded calls, taking over a store while explicitly acknowledging a consignment liability on video, and then denying that consignment existed in court filings, was not a sequence of events that tends to end well. And that shuttering the store the day after default judgments came down looks, to put it diplomatically, quite bad.
The deeper structural problem here — one that Leonard French articulates better than I can — is that the US legal system has a genuine dead zone around mid-five-figure disputes. Too big for small claims (even with Schneider’s claim splitting exploit), too small to justify the cost of a full civil suit, it’s exactly the range where a well-resourced defendant can make a calculated bet that the other side will run out of money or patience before getting justice. That’s a feature of the system Bricks & Minifigs happened to exploit, but is not unique to them.
The answer to that structural problem shouldn’t be “find a YouTuber willing to go to ridiculous lengths to get attention on this issue.” Though in 2026, that does appear to be working better than most alternatives — at least in the court of public opinion, where the verdict has already come in decisively on the side of Mansell and Schneider. That’s a real problem for Bricks & Minifigs and every one of their ~300 franchisees, regardless of how the legal cases resolve. You don’t get to un-become the lego store that allegedly stole an old man’s retirement collection. That story is going to follow this brand around for a long time.
Advertisement
None of this had to go this way. A competent lawyer on either side, at almost any point in this saga, probably changes the outcome significantly. Instead, both sides made calculated bets — Bricks & Minifigs that the costs of fighting would deter anyone from trying, and Schneider that going maximally viral would substitute for having an actual legal strategy. The first bet nearly worked. The second is still being litigated, in multiple senses of that word.
For months the fight in India’s App Store antitrust case was not really about app stores. It was about a spreadsheet. The Competition Commission of India wanted Apple’s financial records; Apple did not want to give them up, least of all the global ones. On 3 June, Apple agreed to submit the financials, removing the obstacle that had stalled the long-pending case.
The reason the data mattered so much is the reason Apple resisted it. Under India’s competition law as updated in 2024, penalties can be calculated against a company’s global turnover rather than its revenue inside the country. For most companies that distinction is academic.
For Apple, whose Indian revenue is a sliver of a business that turns over hundreds of billions of dollars worldwide, it is the difference between a manageable fine and an existential one. Apple has said it fears a penalty of up to $38bn, a figure it has invoked as evidence the regulator is overreaching.
That fear is what drove the months of manoeuvring. Apple had refused to fully comply with the CCI’s demand for detailed financial disclosures, argued that global figures should be out of scope, and escalated the dispute to the Delhi High Court, seeking to pause the proceedings before they reached a final hearing.
Advertisement
The 💜 of EU tech
The latest rumblings from the EU tech scene, a story from our wise ol’ founder Boris, and some questionable AI art. It’s free, every week, in your inbox. Sign up now!
The regulator declined to slow down. The result was a standoff in which the substance of the case, whether Apple abused its market position, was held up by a procedural fight over what the regulator was allowed to see.
The underlying allegation is not new. A 2024 CCI investigation found that Apple had abused its dominant position in the iPhone apps market by requiring developers to use its proprietary in-app purchase system, the same conduct that has drawn regulatory fire in the European Union, the United States and elsewhere. India’s case has moved more slowly, but its penalty framework, anchored to global turnover, gives it unusual teeth.
Advertisement
TNW readers have followed the procedural thread. The Delhi High Court recently brokered a compromise in which it told Apple to cooperate while ordering the CCI not to issue its ruling before 15 July, granting Apple a roughly two-month reprieve while requiring it to produce the data. Wednesday’s agreement is Apple acting on that, handing over the records it had fought to keep back rather than continuing a fight the courts had signalled it would lose.
What the concession does is unblock the case rather than decide it. With the financials in hand, the CCI can move toward the part that actually matters: whether to penalise Apple and, if so, how much.
The global-turnover framework means that calculation is where the real stakes sit, and it is the calculation Apple’s resistance was designed to forestall. Handing over the data does not concede the underlying conduct; it concedes the regulator’s right to the information it needs to act.
The case is now one of several fronts on which Apple’s in-app payment rules are under pressure at once, and India’s is among the more dangerous because of how the fine could be sized. Apple has bought itself a deadline of mid-July and lost the argument over disclosure. The ruling that follows, and the number attached to it, is the part still to come, and the part Apple spent months trying to delay.
From industrial gears to healthcare products to luxury goods, Alitheon’s FeaturePrint provides a link between physical objects and digital traceability without tags, labels, or stickers. (Alitheon Photo)
Bellevue, Wash.-based Alitheon raised $8 million in new funding to expand its FeaturePrint technology, which uses optical AI to create a unique digital “fingerprint” for physical objects — no barcodes, tags, or labels required.
FeaturePrint works by reading the microscopic surface variations every manufactured object naturally has using nothing more than a standard camera. Alitheon calls it “biometrics for things” and says it works on everything from designer purses to industrial gears to pharmaceutical packaging.
“We aren’t just identifying goods; we are powering the trust layer of the global economy, providing a level of security that additives and standard AI simply cannot match,” Alitheon CEO Roei Ganzarski said in a news release this week.
Founded in 2015, Alitheon has built a portfolio of 55+ patents and attracted customers across industries including aerospace, automotive, luxury goods and defense. Swiss precious metals company Argor-Heraeus is a customer.
Alitheron has landed $1.5 million in federal contracts, including work with the Pentagon’s Nuclear Weapons Center. Time magazine named FeaturePrint one of the 200 best inventions of 2023.
Advertisement
In a 2024 GeekWire feature, Ganzarski illustrated the problem his company is trying to solve.
“Last year, auditors found that Lockheed Martin had lost a million parts in the F-35 program,” he said. “Lost? You don’t ‘lose’ parts. They just become unidentifiable. The barcode fell off, the sticker got erased.”
The Series A1 round was led by Emerald Technology Ventures, with participation from eBay Ventures. Alitheon, which employs 24 people, has raised a little over $40 million to date.
BioBead won the top prize at the Demsey Startup Competition, awarded by Trish Held (left), manager of philanthropy at the BECU Foundation, and received by BioBead’s Jared Espinosa and Renee Davis. (UW Photo)
The big winner at the University of Washington’s 29th annual Dempsey Startup Competition was BioBead, a startup launched by a UW team with an ag tech solution for boosting soil health and crop production.
The company won $25,000 from BECU as well as the $2,500 Voyager Capital Best Business to Business Idea Prize.
A record 186 startups entered the competition, whittled down to 16 contenders who pitched before judges in mock boardroom settings. Winners took home a share of $92,500 in prize money.
The event is open to student entrepreneurs from across Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Alaska and British Columbia. Entrants range from very early-stage startups with a prototype to teams with minimum viable products or technologies ready for commercial production.
The competition runs over seven weeks, during which teams refine their strategies — recruiting business students to strengthen go-to-market plans, for example. Judges this year noted that AI is helping teams design more sophisticated technologies.
Grand prize recipient BioBead is developing small, biodegradable pellets that bring together bacteria and fungi that have coexisted in soil for 400 million years, helping plants absorb essential nutrients including nitrogen and phosphorus.
“People seem to be quite disconnected from everything below our feet because we can’t see it,” said Korena Mafune, a BioBead co-founder and UW research scientist. But those organisms are what allow crops above ground to flourish, she added.
BioBead’s other co-founders are Renee Davis, who is finishing her doctoral degree at the UW, and Mari Winkler, a UW professor in civil and environmental engineering. Jared Espinosa, a recent MBA graduate from the UW’s Foster School of Business, joined the team for the competition.
Advertisement
The startup has been working with farmers growing lettuces, tomatoes, corn and wheat to test the benefits of the soil treatment. Initial results show higher crop yields while reducing the need for increasingly expensive fertilizers.
Mafune last month also won a $275,000 grant from the Washington Research Foundation to support commercialization of the technology.
The second to fourth prize winners were:
$15,000 WRF Capital Second Place Prize – CPRight (UW and Western University of Health Sciences in Oregon) is developing a low-cost patch that provides real-time information on compression depth and pace during cardiac emergencies requiring CPR. CPRight also won the $2,500 Chris and Barbara Petersen Best Health & Wellness Impact Idea Prize.
Advertisement
$10,000 iSpot.tv Third Place Prize – Kinnex Health (University of Idaho) is building a wearable sensor to provide continuous joint-movement data collected from patients after orthopedic surgeries and procedures. The team also won the $2,500 Amazon Best Consumer Product Idea Prize.
$7,500 Friends of the Dempsey Startup Fourth Place Prize – Alarmable (UW) is creating a wearable bracelet charm that also serves as an alarm that can be triggered in emergency situations.
Other winners:
$5,000 Wilson Sonsini Social Impact Big Picture Prize – Osanwe Link (UW)
$5,000 Kathryn Gardow & David Bradlee Climate Solutions Big Picture Prize – LEAF (UW)
$5,000 Glympse Emerging Tech Big Picture Prize – Adam Biotech (UW)
$2,500 Smukowski Family Best Sustainable Business Prize – Clubless Collective (UW)
$2,500 eBay Best Marketplace Idea Prize – Kindred (UW)
$2,500 Perkins Coie Best Innovation/Technology Idea Prize – Emerald Dynamics(UW)
$2,500 Saara Romu Community Impact Prize – UWEMS (UW)
$2,500 DLA Piper Best Idea with Global Reach Prize – GridGuard (UBC)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Microsoft’s Build developer conference kicked off today, and as with almost everything the company has done in the last few years, Microsoft’s opening keynote focused overwhelmingly on AI and other closely related technologies. […] On the hardware front, we didn’t get any updates for existing Surface devices (not counting yesterday’s Surface Laptop Ultra announcement), but we did get something new: the Surface RTX Spark Dev Box is “a compact developer PC” built around Nvidia’s new RTX Spark chip with up to 128GB of built-in memory. The Dev Box looks a little like a cartoon anvil or piano fell onto an Xbox Series X and flattened it. Its aluminum casing was designed “to double as a heatsink,” and its preloaded version of Windows 11 Pro will include a “purposeful” set of developer-centric default settings and preinstalled tools.
This is a follow-up of sorts to the Windows Dev Kit 2023, also known as “Project Volterra.” This Qualcomm Snapdragon 8cx Gen 3-powered PC was essentially the system board from a Surface Pro tablet stuffed into a plastic box, and it was introduced alongside Arm-native versions of several Microsoft developer tools. It helped to set the stage for the Arm-based flagship Surface devices that launched the next year, which benefitted from a better and faster x86-to-Arm code translation technology called Prism and a greater number of Arm-native third-party apps that didn’t need to be translated in the first place. Microsoft didn’t announce pricing or specific specs for the RTX Spark Dev Box, but you can probably expect it to cost quite a bit more than the $600 that Project Volterra did. Hopefully, Microsoft can keep the price at least somewhat lower than the $4,699 asking price for Nvidia’s similarly specced DGX Spark box.
On the software side, several developer-centric changes are coming to Windows 11, particularly for users of the Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL). Microsoft is introducing a Windows-native version of the coreutils command line tools, so that commands or scripts made for Linux work within Windows and the other way around; the ability to run WSL inside of containers, said to be arriving in “the coming months”; and something called Windows Developer Configurations that uses the WinGet tool to quickly set up “a distraction-free dev environment with VS Code, GitHub Copilot, WSL, PowerShell 7 and developer-optimized settings with one command on any Windows 11 device.” Microsoft also introduced Microsoft Execution Containers (MXC), as “enterprise-grade sandboxed environments” that let AI agents like OpenClaw operate on Windows without getting unrestricted access to the whole system. In theory, MXC could let organizations enforce agent-specific limits, such as blocking access to personal accounts, separating work and personal data, or requiring permission before deleting files.
The MXC GitHub repo also notes support for “multiple containment backends,” meaning the same sandboxing concept could apply beyond AI agents to other plugins, tools, and workloads.
For certain professions, like designers, developers, and digital creators, the portfolio-first idea keeps coming back. As the argument goes, if your work speaks for itself, why would you ever need a resume? However, anyone who has recently applied for a contract or full-time role knows the reality of the situation.
Hiring still very much happens through structured filters, applicant tracking systems (ATS), and busy recruiters. Yes, you need a decent portfolio to be memorable but having a compelling resume is what gets you screened in.
Here’s the good news: resume builders in 2026 have caught up. The best ones are AI-integrated, ATS-intelligent, and allow you to balance personal branding with structured information.
If you’re a freelancer, a designer, a developer, or a digital creator, then using one of these resume builders is the perfect way to compliment your personal website.
Advertisement
What makes a resume builder worth using in 2026
You need to understand that the category for this type of software has evolved. A few years ago, most resume builders were nothing more than template libraries. The bar is much higher now.
Ideally, a resume builder that’s worth your time and money has these four major facets:
AI that understands resumes, not just text. General AI tools rewrite bullets without knowing what a recruiter is actually looking for. Tools trained on resume best practices focus on the specifics, like action verbs, quantified results, and missing keywords from the job description.
ATS intelligence without hacks. The ideal resume builder employs clear layouts and logical keyword placement, ensuring that your resume is easily readable by both machine algorithms and people.
Real-time feedback. The builders that offer you real value can tell you exactly which bullet is vague, which section is light, and what you need to fix.
Design that compliments a portfolio. For designers and developers, a resume that looks like it was made in the previous decade contradicts the work it’s attached to. Layout, typography, and visual hierarchy still matter.
Now let’s go over the tools that meet most of the criteria.
Side-by-side resume builder comparison
Tool
Best for
AI features
ATS-friendly
Free plan
Enhancv
Best overall for personal branding
ATS intelligence, AI content tailoring, real-time feedback
Yes
Limited
Canva
Full creative control
Basic AI writing
Mixed
Generous
Novoresume
Structured, polished layouts
Content suggestions
Yes
Limited
Resume.io
Speed and simplicity
Pre-written bullets
Yes
No
Kickresume
AI-assisted writing
GPT-based generator
Yes
Limited
FlowCV
Minimalist resumes
Light AI assistance
Yes
Generous
Now let’s take a closer look at each tool.
Enhancv: best overall resume builder for personal branding
Enhancv is the strongest all-rounder resume builder. It’s the most consistent pick for developers and digital creators who want their resume to do more than list jobs. It combines AI assistance with real-time feedback. That’s what separates it from tools that only generate text.
Advertisement
You can use the AI resume tailoring feature to analyze a job description and adjust your resume to match it. It will rework your keywords, skills, accomplishments, and phrasing. The Resume Checker runs 27 distinct checks across content, layout, formatting, and style, and explains the why behind every recommendation. The content checker is trained on hiring patterns, rewording weak bullets into active, quantified ones.
The template library is ATS-tested. And the drag-and-drop editor gives high degrees of customization. For digital creators who want personality and recruiter-readiness in one document, Enhancv’s resume templates are the safest default.
However, Enhancv isn’t a design tool. Despite the high levels of personalization you can achieve with it, you’d need a dedicated design tool for complete visual control. This brings us to the next best option.
Canva: best for full creative control
Canva gives you a lot of freedom to make your design look the way you want it to. Drag, drop, recolor, add an icon, swap a font. The flexibility is genuine, and for portfolio-related positions where the resume serves as a design example, Canva is effective.
Advertisement
But the trade-off is also real. ATS parsability on heavily designed Canva documents can be a hit or miss. Multi-column layouts, embedded graphics, and non-standard visuals can confuse older parsers.
Canva’s AI writing tools have advanced, yet they still seem more general-purpose compared to the specialized ones designed for resumes. The optimal approach is to utilize Canva when the focus is on the design itself. Nonetheless, combine it with a simpler version for the ATS systems.
Novoresume: best for structured, polished layouts
Novoresume leans more into clean, structured layouts. The sections of the resume are clearly defined, the spacing is uniform, and the final product appears refined immediately. This is an excellent option for those who desire their resume to appear traditional and professional without investing much time in making adjustments.
AI assistance is lesser here than at Enhancv. It provides you with content ideas, but the feedback loop is much narrower. The main idea is that Novoresume is perfect for those who have their content ready and just need help with the design.
Advertisement
Resume.io: best for speed and simplicity
Resume.io optimizes for the quickest path between a blank page and finished ATS-ready PDF. The interface is straightforward, the prompts are simple to comprehend, and the suggested pre-written bullet points help you with the most tedious aspect of resume writing.
However, what this tool lacks is depth. Customization is limited, design variation is modest, and the AI is limited to filling in blanks rather than diagnosing what’s weak. Still, if you need a resume real quick, then Resume.io will suffice.
Kickresume: best for AI-assisted resume writing
As a product, Kickresume bets heavily on AI-generated content. It can create a complete initial draft from a job title and some prompts. This is useful if you’re unable to get beyond looking at an empty document. The template library is robust, and ATS compatibility is typically effective.
But keep in mind that drafts generated by AI still require editing and personal contributions. Kickresume produces a polished output, but recruiters can easily identify a generic application from afar. Utilize it to start, then rephrase the bullet points in your unique style.Your portfolio and your resume should look like they were made by the person so make sure your resume sounds like you and shows your character.
Advertisement
FlowCV: best minimalist resume builder
FlowCV is known for minimal, ATS-friendly resumes. There’s little friction and the free plan is unusually generous. The interface is calm, and the output is pretty much what you’d expect for a developer who wants a straightforward document.
The AI features are light, design options are intentionally narrow to minimize choice fatigue, and the tool assumes you know exactly what to say in your document. If you’re a developer or a freelance engineer, and you prefer a visually quiet resume, then FlowCV is a reliable option.
Resume builder vs. personal website: what should you use?
As we established, the two formats serve different parts of the same job search.
When a resume builder is enough
Modern resume builders cover what most hiring pipelines actually require:
Advertisement
Applying through traditional channels (job boards, company career pages, recruiter inboxes).
structured document that an ATS can read in under a second.
The role values consistency and credentials over visual differentiation.
Corporate design teams, in-house developer roles, and full-time positions routed through HR usually expect a resume. A polished personal site you have to ask the recruiter to bookmark won’t suffice.
When you should build a personal website instead
A personal website is the better investment when the work is the pitch:
You’re a freelancer, contractor, or creator selling services directly.
Your portfolio needs to breathe (case studies, process write-ups, video, interactive demos).
You want clients finding you via search, not just applying through a job board.
You care about branding (domain, design system, voice, all within your control).
For independent designers and developers, a well-put WordPress website is often the difference between getting referrals and chasing them.
The hybrid approach (recommended)
For most digital creators, it’s best to have both.
Use a resume builder that suits you for your applications. When a recruiter asks for a PDF, you’ll have one ready.
Meanwhile, use your WordPress site for presence and credibility. That’s the long tail of work that wins trust before the interview. Besides, you can link to your site from your resume header.
Advertisement
Final thoughts
The portfolio-first mindset is partially correct. Portfolios continue to serve as evidence. The thing is, recruiters usually look at your resume first to decide if they want to consider you for a job. Portfolios are evidence of your work and skills and resumes help recruiters screen people from a sea of candidates.
In 2026, the top resume creators connect the two. They offer AI that comprehends recruitment, feedback that enhances the resume, and formats that succeed in ATS.
If you choose to invest in just one tool, Enhancv is the safest overall choice. It is particularly effective for developers and creators seeking to establish personal branding while ensuring recruiter appeal in one document.
The company is expected to complete the round in the next couple of weeks.
Chinese AI leader DeepSeek is close to finalising a $7.4bn funding round led by Tencent and Contemporary Amperex (CATL), with participation from the $8bn state-backed National Artificial Intelligence Industry Investment Fund, multiple publications have reported.
The round is expected to value the GenAI darling between $52bn and $59bn, sources added, placing it leagues ahead of rival Moonshot, which raised $2bn last month at a valuation of $20bn.
External participants are expected to invest around $4.4bn, with Tencent pitching in $1.5bn and battery giant CATL around $735m, while company founder Liang Wenfeng has personally invested around $2.94bn, reports suggested.
Advertisement
Alibaba was also reported to be taking part in this round, while Tencent was reported to have proposed taking a 20pc stake in the company, which is expected to complete the round in the next couple of weeks.
DeepSeek’s latest funding round comes as AI contemporaries across the world are raising capital to compete in the fast-advancing race for enterprise adoption.
Claude parent Anthropic announced that it filed to go public earlier this week, with reports estimating the company’s valuation could soar above $1trn. The AI leader raised $65bn at a $965bn valuation in its last private round.
OpenAI, recently valued at $852bn, is also planning to go public. CNBC reported that the company was preparing to confidentially file for an IPO late last month.
The company took more than a year after R1 to release its long-awaited V4 large language model, which, it claimed at the time, “redefine[d] the state-of-the-art for open models”. V4 was hyped to be the company’s most important launch since R1, and V3 in late 2024.
Other AI rivals in China made a flurry of launches ahead of V4 to avoid competition, including Alibaba with Qwen3.5; ByteDance’s Seedance 2.0; Zhipu’s GLM-5, trained entirely using Chinese chips; MiniMax, which released M2.5; and the Alibaba-backed Moonshot AI, which came out with Kimi K2.5.
Don’t miss out on the knowledge you need to succeed. Sign up for the Daily Brief, Silicon Republic’s digest of need-to-know sci-tech news.
The BCG report found that many organisations are struggling to turn AI into a resource that shows genuine company-wide value.
New research from Boston Consulting Group (BCG), has found that for some organisations, artificial intelligence is fundamentally reshaping the nature of work, leadership and how employees experience the workplace. However, whether the change is positive or negative is up for debate.
To collect data for BCG’s fourth annual AI at Work report, the organisation gathered information from 11,749 globally dispersed employees across 14 markets in a broad range of industries. What was discovered is that 72pc of respondents believe AI has already considerably changed skills expectations in their roles. Almost half report spending more time managing and directing AI than doing the work itself.
More than two-thirds of people who regularly use AI say it has improved their job satisfaction. However, four out of every 10 contributors to the research find that it has increased cognitive load, creating a ‘joy paradox’ where AI is making work better and harder at the same time.
Advertisement
Despite widespread usage, many companies are finding that they are not necessarily converting supposed AI-driven efficiency gains into something that is of measurable value.
For example, while 42pc of regular frontline users report saving at least a full workday through AI per week, 66pc also reported that they get limited or no guidance on what to do with that time. More than half don’t redirect it into strategic work, meaning any time saved leaks out of the organisation.
“The first wave of AI focused on individual productivity. The coming wave will need to transform collective work,” said Vinciane Beauchene, a managing director and partner at BCG, who is also a co-author of the report.
“Everyone is talking about AI replacing work, but it is in fact really about rethinking the human value-add inside. This is the role of leaders. Our survey reveals a true managerial revolution in the age of AI. 65pc of managers and leaders now believe agents will take over at least half of their job in the next three years and frontline workers see their jobs evolving towards more managing and directing AI.”
Advertisement
Strategic clarity
Since last year’s report, more than double the number of respondents said that AI agents are already integrated into workflows, however, there are clear issues around clarity and efficacy. 61pc of contributors agreed that agents could do at least half their job within three years, yet more than half (52pc) still have a limited understanding of what agents are and governance still lags far behind the technology.
The report finds that strategic clarity emerges from the survey as “the most crucial differentiator in sustaining AI’s impact over time as organisations are moving past simply implementing AI tools in use-case deployment initiatives”. This has resulted in what the report authors called the ‘reshape/invent dividend’, which “leads to more value captured and a better employee experience”.
Sylvain Duranton, another co-author and the global leader of BCG X said: “The joy equation rewrites itself within a year of using AI. Early on, AI’s novelty and cognitive stretch fuel enjoyment, but that ‘AI honeymoon’ fades without strategic clarity.
“Employees don’t push back on AI intensity, they thrive when the strategy is clear, the direction is real and the message reaches them. Business value and employee enjoyment aren’t trade-offs. The organisations capturing the greatest business value are the same ones where employees enjoy work the most.”
Advertisement
In mid-May, International Data Corporation (IDC), in partnership with Dell Technologies, published a global study exploring how European governments and public sector organisations are approaching sovereign and agentic AI and what it will take to deploy the technology at scale.
What was discovered is that leaders in Europe’s public sector are showing strong drive in accelerating modernisation through agentic AI, although they also face a critical gap in the skills that are needed to operate advanced technologies. This is creating a significant divide between ambition and operational capacity, according to the report.
Don’t miss out on the knowledge you need to succeed. Sign up for the Daily Brief, Silicon Republic’s digest of need-to-know sci-tech news.
Meta is scaling back parts of its employee tracking initiative after staff objected to software that collected mouse movements, clicks, keystrokes, and other actions for AI training data. According to Reuters, the company will now let workers pause collection for up to 30 minutes and request exemptions. Reuters reports: [Stephane Kasriel, a vice president in Meta’s AI model-building Superintelligence Labs unit] said the team behind the software had also introduced “several optimizations” to reduce its impact on computer battery life, after employees complained it was consuming so much data it was causing their home internet usage to spike. “While we remain confident in the privacy protections we put in place at launch, which went through several layers of risk review, we have heard your concerns about personal data on work devices, battery life, and wanting more control over when capturing happens,” Kasriel said in the memo.
Previously, I looked at using the Linux video loopback system from the command line. The basic trick was simple enough: capture video from a real camera, process it with something like ffmpeg, and write the result to a fake camera device via the v4l2loopback device. Then a browser, or any camera-enabled software, sees the fake camera as if it were real. This allows you to manipulate video before sending it to the rest of the world.
That works, and for those of us who like command lines, it’s easy enough to execute. But not everyone loves the command line. In the comments, there was another obvious answer: use OBS Studio.
While OBS is excellent, it is also a bit like using a laser to chop a carrot. If you already use OBS, fine. If you only want to crop a webcam, add an effect, mirror an image, or feed a virtual camera, it can feel like a lot. If you must have a GUI, you can try Webcamoid, which sits somewhere between a simple webcam viewer and a full video production system.
Webcamoid gives you a GUI for selecting a camera, applying effects, and sending the result to a virtual camera. Conceptually, it is much closer to the command-line loopback setup from the previous post than to OBS. You are still building a pipeline from input camera to output camera, but now you can do much of it with buttons and menus instead of shell commands.
Advertisement
That’s in theory, of course. Implementing Webcamoid turned out to be quite the exercise. Granted, this probably varies depending on where you install software. If your distro has a clean working copy of Webcamoid and its dependencies, good for you. For everyone else, keep reading.
The Moving Parts
There are two pieces to understand. Webcamoid is the GUI application. It captures video, previews it, applies effects, and can write to a virtual camera. You also need a driver to produce the fake or virtual camera. AkVCam is one of the virtual camera drivers that Webcamoid can use on Linux. It can also use v4l2loopback, as we discussed last time. Both approaches create fake /dev/videoX devices, but their configuration models are different.
With v4l2loopback, the typical setup is command-line oriented:
Then some program writes frames to /dev/video10. For example, ffmpeg can read from a real webcam and write to the virtual one. Of course, if you want a permanent virtual camera, you can make an entry in /etc/modprobe.d.
Advertisement
AkVCam is more structured. Instead of simply creating a generic loopback device, it uses a configuration file that defines one or more virtual cameras, their input/output relationship, and the formats they support. That sounds like more work, and in a way it is. But it also gives you tighter control over what formats the virtual camera advertises. This sometimes matters more than you might expect.
Install, Remove, Install…
The hard part of Linux webcam work is often not getting video — it’s getting every piece of the chain to agree on width, height, frame rate, and pixel format, along with matching each other’s API expectations.
I tried three different ways to install Webcamoid. First, I used the normal OpenSUSE Tumbleweed repos to install the program. It couldn’t find any cameras. My next stop was a Flatpak version. That worked well, but it is deliberately crippled and won’t even try to drive a virtual camera, directing you to install the regular version instead. Then I tried an AppImage. This seemed to work OK, but the virtual camera would never display anything but a black screen.
Note that the version on AppImageHub is old, and the source project requires payment for prebuilt binaries. I didn’t try either of those options.
Advertisement
I tried a lot of things to make it work. My final answer was to use the AppImage, but I had to build my own version of AkvCam from GitHub.
Even then, at first, the video output was highly pixelated. The culprit was AkVCam using the 640×480 RGB format. Upscaling created a blocky mess.
You can see what a device is doing with:
v4l2-ctl -d /dev/video3 --all
In my case, the virtual output reported:
Advertisement
Width/Height : 640/480
Pixel Format : 'RGB3'
scaling_mode : Fast
aspect_ratio_mode : Ignore
That explains it. “Fast” scaling usually means “not pretty,” and 640×480 is not a great starting point for modern video calls.
The fix was to simplify the AkVCam configuration. Instead of giving the virtual camera a long list of supported formats, I configured it with essentially one useful format. For example, if the pipeline is meant to be 1280×720 at 30 fps, make that the format. Do not give every program in the chain an opportunity to negotiate itself down to postage-stamp resolution.
A minimal AkVCam setup generally defines a capture device, an output device, a connection between them, and formats. In the generated config I was using, the output camera had several formats:
The problem was that format 19 was 640×480. The high-resolution formats were present, but not preferred. Reordering the list might help, but for reliability, using only the desired format is even better.
Advertisement
Webcamoid As A GUI Pipeline
ASCII filter in action.
Once the virtual camera driver is sane, Webcamoid works well. You select the real camera as the source, apply whatever effects you want, and select the AkVCam virtual camera as the output. The receiving application then sees the virtual camera.
Compared to the command-line approach, Webcamoid makes experimentation easier. Want to flip the image, adjust color, crop, blur, or test silly filters? That is all much easier in a GUI than in an ffmpeg or gstreamer filter chain, although I still don’t mind the command line. There’s not much difference between using Webcamoid as a friendly front end or manipulating the image as we did last time.
However, I would not oversell it. Webcamoid is not OBS. It is not really a scene compositor. If you want multiple live sources — say, a screen capture as the main image and your webcam as picture-in-picture — OBS is the obvious GUI tool. With the command line, you can easily do things like this by calling ffmpeg directly.
That’s a Wrap!
If you want a full production environment, OBS is still the right answer. It handles scenes, multiple sources, transitions, screen capture, overlays, and virtual camera output in a single application. But if you liked the command-line loopback idea and wished it had a friendlier face, Webcamoid plus AkVCam is worth a look. It gives you a GUI for the common case: one camera in, effects applied, one virtual camera out. You just need to fight through the installation and configuration with your specific setup. Hopefully, yours will be easier than mine.
As usual, Linux rewards knowing what is happening under the hood. Webcamoid can make the workflow friendlier, but v4l2-ctl is still your friend, and, at least for some people, you’ll need some Linux Fu to get it all working in harmony.
A new Entertainment Software Associationstudy found that most Americans think video games provide the most entertainment value for their money compared to other forms of entertainment
75% of parents are actively play video games each week, while 81% enjoy playing with their children
The majority of players across all age groups are also spending money on in-game content
A new Entertainment Software Association (ESA) study has found that the majority of gamers in the United States prefer to spend their money on video games because they think they provide more entertainment value than other forms of media.
According to the ESA, 67% of Americans between the ages of five and 90 are now playing video games one or more hours per week, which equates to 212.3 million. This is up by 3% (7.2million) compared to 2025, and split fairly equally between men and women, with 53% of men and 46% of women actively playing.
Latest Videos From
The latest stats show that parents actually like their children playing video games and enjoy gaming with them, with 75% actively playing video games each week, and 81% saying they also game with their children (52% at least weekly).
Nearly half (49%) of parents also believe that their children playing games teaches important skills, such as problem solving and creative thinking, while the majority of American adults recognize the positive benefits of play.
Advertisement
85% find games to be fun, 78% say they offer stress relief, and 79% say they provide mental stimulation. Younger gamers in the Gen Z category (88%) also believe gaming brings people together and builds relationships (87%).
Gaming is a billion-dollar industry, and the cost of consoles and software has been increasing over the past few years, with most AAA first-party games now costing upwards of $80 to $90.
Sign up for breaking news, reviews, opinion, top tech deals, and more.
Advertisement
However, according to the study, most Americans (63%) believe games offer the most value for their money compared to other forms of media like video streaming services for music, TV, movies, books, and magazines.
The majority of players across all age groups are also spending additional money on in-game content, with 69% of Gen Alpha, 78% of Gen Z, and 67% of Millennials typically spending $20 per month.
54% of parents are even purchasing in-game content for their children, although we don’t know which games. 93% of them also said they require approval for in-game purchases made by their kids.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login