Tufano v. Shopify

BACK TO WORK AFTER SURGERY - Free Range Meat Vlog · December 12, 2023

things first I put an automated email response saying like oh Frankie is going to be away for about a week so please be patient with the emails the people that harass my business Place fake orders file chargebacks took that as an opportunity thinking I wasn't checking my emails and orders to just try to place a bunch of fake orders and do charge backs and caused me a bunch of Mayhem so there were probably between 10 and 20 orders where people intentionally placed an order with the wrong address

The grievance the Shopify / business-platform dispute is built on, stated 162 days before C040 was filed (2023-12-12 against 2024-05-22, both dates on record). The claims-summary record for C013 records that he pleads "he received 138 chargebacks over the life of the business, that banks initially sided with customers he characterizes as fraudulent", and for C072 that he "noticed an evolving pattern of the behavior of [] customers filing chargebacks". This passage is the contemporaneous version of that same pattern claim, including the specific mechanism (a deliberately wrong shipping address followed by a refund demand) and a count ("between 10 and 20 orders") for the single week he was away. The count is his own and unverified, and spoken figures are the least reliable content this research handles. He describes other people's conduct, not his own filing conduct, so No filing-conduct factor applies.

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

Cavity Concentrate! Water Kefir! Demi Glace! Free Range Meat Vlog · April 22, 2024

I'm not going to talk about the chargebacks and scams this week but it's it's tough you know it's like a few people were like saying uh I maybe I'll talk about that next week because it's always like firsttime customers and they're doing sketchy stuff like when I tell them to take photos of the entire order immediately and then the packing s they say oh I already threw it out or I don't have it so it's just you know trying to filter through the nonsense but it hasn't been that bad

C013's claims summary describes the grievance C040 was built on as "138 chargebacks over the life of the business," with banks siding with customers he characterises as fraudulent. This quote states that grievance — first-time customers, "sketchy stuff," a photo-and-packing-slip evidence protocol he has already put in place — 30 days before C040 was filed, and does so while explicitly declining to discuss it. It also confirms chargebacks are a standing segment of the vlog, which 4nRZcoGscmk (2024-05-20) corroborates from the other side ("you guys want to hear about me complaining about chargebacks and stuff", plus the uploader's own Chargeback? chapter title). No filing, court, lawyer or intention to sue is mentioned anywhere in this video.

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

LA Restaurant Vlog #2 - Avra Beverly Hills · May 12, 2024

when like I don't really like for me $200 bro like I lose so much money on my business doesn't make any sense like how can you lose so much money on your business every week from people just filing chargebacks that you could eat a restaurants a few nights a week and not [ __ ] worry about it cuz like oh what's another $500 I lose

The Shopify-dispute chargeback grievance stated in his own words before the action that pleads it existed. C040 (Tufano v. Frankies Free Range Meat Conspirators, M.D. Pa. 3:24-cv-00846) was filed 2024-05-22 — 10 days after this video published and, given the documented lag between this video's recording and its publication, at least 27 days after it was recorded. C040's recorded claims summary alleges that ~130 named individuals, "apparently Shopify merchants, employees, or customers," are liable to him for $1,000,000 "based on chargebacks connected to his 'Frankie's Free Range Meats' online meat-delivery business." The quote supplies the grievance, the mechanism and a running dollar figure, with no case, court, filing or lawyer mentioned anywhere in 48 minutes. Because the word "filing" appears in the quote, the classification needs saying plainly: the filing described is customers filing chargebacks with their banks, not anyone filing a lawsuit — he describes no filing of his own, no threatened filing and no prior action, so treating this as a filing announcement would be a straightforward misreading. "What's another $500 I lose" is also a fifth irreconcilable chargeback figure, joining the four already on record across three other videos ($650 / $700 / $2,000 / "3 or $4,000"); it is recorded alongside them and reconciled with none of them. Note also that the loss period here is "every week," which not every one of those four attaches to.

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

First the Freezer BROKE! NOW THE FRIDGE!? Free Range Meat Vlog · July 15, 2024

on top of that chargebacks like $1,000 in chargebacks and people trying to scam me so it really never ends

C040 (Tufano v. Frankies Free Range Meat Conspirators, M.D. Pa. 3:24-cv-00846, part of the Shopify / business-platform conspiracy litigation) was filed 2024-05-22 and was pending on this date (dismissed 2024-12-09), and chargebacks also reach the claims summaries for C013, C050 and C072. The quote states the underlying grievance — chargebacks framed as coordinated scamming — while that action was live, and names neither the action nor any defendant. Earlier research recorded the same shape on another video: the theory of a pending case narrated without the case.

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

OVER 50 CHARGEBACKS IN TWO WEEKS!? · May 18, 2025

I'm trying my best with the business stuff, but these gangstalkers are getting ridiculous with the chargebacks. I think it's over 50 in the past two weeks. This is the first page of chargebacks in my emails. Second page, third page, and here's the fourth page of chargebacks.

A number attached to a date — over 50 chargebacks in the two weeks preceding 2025-05-18, i.e. roughly 2025-05-04 to 2025-05-18 — for the exact factual predicate of the Shopify-dispute pleadings. The claims-summary record for C072 quotes the complaint itself: Tufano "noticed an evolving pattern of the behavior of [] customers filing chargebacks, the majority of them making no attempt" to resolve directly with him. The C050 claims summary describes the same theory as the basis of a $1,000,000 demand. Nothing else in the dataset carries a chargeback count or a date range; this supplies both, on camera, as his own contemporaneous assertion. He also shows what he says are four pages of chargeback emails — visual, not captioned, and not assessable from the transcript. Recorded as a party statement, not a verified figure.

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

CHARGEBACKS CONTINUE! Shopify colluding with Gangstalkers!? · June 11, 2025

And I did file a lawsuit. So, I'm going to be allowed to list and name all the defendants in this lawsuit publicly. So, all 150 people who stole money from me on these chargebacks will be listed in a YouTube video.

The most consequential statement in this video, and possibly in the slice. He states a purpose for the filing that is not a remedy: naming ~150 people as defendants makes their identities publishable, and he says on camera that he intends to publish them. Set that against the docket — C040 (3:24-cv-00846) lists 65 individual defendants and C054 (3:25-cv-01227) lists roughly 140, overwhelmingly private individuals with no corporate connection to Shopify. His "all 150 people who stole money from me on these chargebacks" maps onto that defendant list almost exactly, which is his own account of what those ~140 names are. Filing announced or confirmed is the factor: he confirms a filing made. Cost imposition as stated motive was considered and rejected — the stated motive here is publication, not making anyone spend money — and the tier stays Moderate because no core factor applies.

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

CHARGEBACKS CONTINUE! Shopify colluding with Gangstalkers!? · June 11, 2025

This week, we filed a case in both the federal court and the state court. As if a judge is going to do the right thing, though. They're probably just going to dismiss the case and I'm going to be screwed as usual, losing money.

A self-reported parallel filing that the docket independently confirms. In the ten days before publication the tracker records exactly that pattern, twice over: C050 (M.D. Pa. 3:25-cv-00975) and C051 (M.D. Pa. 3:25-cv-00976) filed 2025-06-02, and C013 (Lackawanna 2025-04276, Tufano v. Shopify) and C014 (Lackawanna 2025-04277, Tufano v. TikTok) filed 2025-06-06. This is one of the rare cases where a self-report about filing conduct can be checked against the docket and matches. The second half alleges the outcome is predetermined ("as if a judge is going to do the right thing"), which is Judicial or forum bias alleged.

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

Gangstalkers STEAL ANOTHER $1000 on Shopify · July 13, 2025

Despite my current active lawsuit against Shopify, they are still facilitating over $1,000 a week worth of chargebacks against my business.

He confirms a live action against Shopify on the publication date and puts the ongoing loss at over $1,000 a week. On 2025-07-13 three tracked Shopify actions were on foot or freshly filed: C050 (M.D. Pa. 3:25-cv-00975, filed 2025-06-02), C013 (Lackawanna 2025-04276, filed 2025-06-06) and C054 (M.D. Pa. 3:25-cv-01227, filed 2025-07-07 — six days before this video). He says "lawsuit", singular, and names no docket, court or judge, so which action he means cannot be fixed from the transcript. Filing announced or confirmed is not a core factor, so the tier is Moderate.

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

Gangstalkers STEAL ANOTHER $1000 on Shopify · July 13, 2025

I mean, I'm just going to file a motion for monetary sanctions in the court and watch this judge ignore me as usual.

Two factors in eleven words. He announces an intended filing that has not yet been made — a motion for monetary sanctions — and in the same breath alleges the assigned judge will disregard it “as usual”, which is Judicial or forum bias alleged. Neither factor is core, so the tier is Moderate. Whether this motion was ever filed is not established here: the transcript names no docket, and a threatened filing that never happened is itself a finding, so a docket check on the Shopify-dispute cases live in July 2025 (C013 / C050 / C054) remains the outstanding follow-up.

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

Shopify continues to STEAL MONEY!!! · July 16, 2025

This is 100% gangstalking. Shopify is secretly working with people to defraud small businesses of money.

Names Shopify directly and states the conspiracy theory of the case — that the platform is not merely permitting chargebacks but is a participant in them. That is the same chargebacks-as-conspiracy theory the case tracker records as the shared core of the Shopify / business-platform dispute group; C054's own refiling note describes "the same chargebacks-as-conspiracy theory and the same 18 U.S.C. 241 count that C040 lost."

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

Shopify Chargebacks ARE CRIMINAL not Civil · July 22, 2025

Yeah, I've been physically sick at this point. So disgusted by these chargebacks. I started calling up some police stations and I found out it's actually a criminal offense. So this is not a civil issue. These people that are stealing money from me can technically be put in jail

The chargebacks are the subject matter of a whole tracked line of litigation — the Shopify / business-platform conspiracy dispute. The recorded claims summaries show that C050 (M.D. Pa. 3:25-cv-00975, filed 2025-06-02, 142 defendants) alleges Shopify and "over 140 co-defendants … apparently Shopify merchants, employees, or customers" are liable for $1,000,000 based on chargebacks, "characterized as criminal civil-rights violations under 18 U.S.C. § 241" — and that C054 (3:25-cv-01227, filed 2025-07-07, 144 defendants) is the same roster refiled. So this statement is not a change of theory: he had already pleaded the chargebacks under a criminal conspiracy statute in a civil suit. What is new is the announcement of a parallel non-court route for the same grievance, made 15 days after C054 was filed and while C050 was still pending (C050 was dismissed 2025-09-04).

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

Customer with $9 Million House CHARGEBACK · February 26, 2026

There has been some type of organized gangstalking against my business since I've started and we've lost thousands of dollars in chargebacks every single month for over six years now. This is why I tell people never to use Shopify and we're trying to get off the platform. But they will help these gangstalkers steal money from you.

Names Shopify and states a quantified theory of harm attributed to the platform's chargeback handling, thousands of dollars a month over more than six years. That is the substantive grievance behind the tracked Shopify actions in his own words.

Why this classification: Moderate because the platform defendant is named in the audio and the harm is stated with a figure and a duration, which is dispute background rather than general commentary; no filing conduct is described and no case number or court is spoken. The organised-gangstalking framing is his characterisation and is offered without evidence.

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

Customer with $9 Million House CHARGEBACK · February 26, 2026

Someone gets the product delivered, they file a charge back, they always win. They side with the gangstalker. They don't side with the small business.

States the mechanism he attributes the losses to: a customer receives the goods, files a chargeback and prevails, with the platform siding against the small business.

Why this classification: Moderate because it is the clearest single-sentence statement of the theory behind the tracked Shopify actions, with no filing conduct described. No individual is named and no identifying detail about any customer appears in this passage.

Transcript-verified verbatim quote