> The statements made by the company are simply untrue.

Okay? Is there a place to see this evidence without watching 90-minute YouTube videos?

No but I can link timestamps to relevant clips:

- At 3:06 they explicitly acknowledge the consignment and state they will be taking it over

- At 13:15 the CEO says he never had the LEGOs in the store and then is confronted with screenshots of said LEGOs from their official Facebook pages

- At 23:05 the new owner that took over the store (and also the LEGOs) first says he doesn't know about any LEGOs, then he says that he wasn't the one to sign the consignment and therefore doesn't have to give them back

- At 47:42 the same guy confirms again they have the LEGOs, tries to argue about the definition of theft and says that he won't give them back. (quoting "who cares if it's theft or not")

- At 49:46 the same guy admits again that he has the LEGOs and he promises to give them back if the actual owner provides him an apology and removes the negative reviews.

- At 1:00:45 corporate says "I'm not gonna distribute those things at this point. We've kept them on hold for this long so"

I recommend watching the videos and deciding for yourself. They've already won in court and nobody has paid them. How are they in the wrong at all here?