Tufano v. Google

Probiotic! Collagen! Sheep Cheese! Fresh Duck! Organic Popcorn & Potato Chips! FREE RANGE MEAT VLOG · July 2, 2024

people that plays firsttime orders and they make stuff up and then they leave slanderous reviews about my company so it's been going on for a while it's unfortunate but the reason they do that is because you know when someone who hasn't bought from me and they go to Google reviews and see these fake slanderous reviews it hurts my business so whether they these people will ever be held accountable I don't know

Recorded specifically so that a link that looks obvious is declined on the record. Google is mentioned three times in this video, and C018/C058 (Tufano v. Google) exist. But those cases plead that Google conspired to suppress his own negative reviews of Dr. Taban; here the grievance is that Google hosts fake negative reviews of his business and that nobody is held accountable for them. Same platform, opposite direction of grievance — a trap this research has documented repeatedly. The passage does bear on C040, whose § 241 claim covers exactly this fake-review-plus-chargeback pattern.

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

Realself FAKE REVIEWS · January 14, 2025

submitted my review to real self a few weeks ago now and guess what they never proved it it's not on the website I put a 100% factual story showing the website botched by ton.com and I also submitted them the receipts of me paying for the plastic surgery

The specific factual grievance against a named, tracked defendant. "Real self" resolves to RealSelf Inc, a defendant in C018 (Lackawanna County 2025-05634, filed 2025-07-25) and C058 (M.D. Pa. 3:25-cv-01574, filed 2025-08-22), both grouped under the Google / RealSelf litigation. The statement precedes the earlier of those filings by about six months — a pre-filing statement of the grievance rather than any commentary on a pending case. One caption caveat: "they never proved it" is almost certainly "approved it."

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

Realself FAKE REVIEWS · January 14, 2025

so these websites these reviews whether it's Google reviews Yelp real self any general Google search you cannot trust these for any plastic surgeon you cannot

Names two of the three defendant families in the Google / RealSelf litigation in one sentence — Google (Google/Alphabet Inc in C018 and C058) and RealSelf Inc — plus Yelp, which is not a tracked party. This is the generalised “review platforms are captured” theory that C018 and C058 were later pleaded on. The tier is Moderate, with no filing-conduct factor.

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

Google Protects BUTCHER TABAN · January 25, 2025

man I don't even think my review was live for a few days before tabon got his buddies at Google to remove it as all he cares about is butchering your face to pad his wallet now my review is visible to me when I'm logged into Google and it has 46 likes so it should be at the top of the page for anyone but in any other browser when I'm not logged in poof my review is magically gone

The strongest quote among those researched from this video. It states, on a dated public record, the specific factual allegation that later underlies the tracked Google action — that a negative review he wrote was removed from public view at the surgeon's instance — and it names both sides of it: Google (with Alphabet Inc, all tracked defendants) and Taban (captioned "tabon"). It also supplies a checkable operational detail: the review shows 46 likes when logged in and is absent when logged out. He describes no filing conduct — no case, court, docket, judge or lawyer is named anywhere in the video, and no suit against Google existed yet. Tier: Moderate (No filing-conduct factor)

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

Google Reviews for Doctors ARE FAKE · April 28, 2025

because Google reviews, Real Self [caption garble — "RealSelf"], any sort of platform that hosts reviews for plastic surgeons is 100% controlled by them.

Names Google and RealSelf in one breath, three months before the two are named together as defendants in C018 and again in C058. The allegation — platform control of surgeon reviews — is the pleaded theory of both. Tier: Moderate (No filing-conduct factor)

Why this classification: Moderate because he names Google and RealSelf together and states the platform-control theory three months before those same two are sued together on that theory in C018 and C058, but his words describe no filing, only the alleged wrong.

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

Google Reviews for Doctors ARE FAKE · April 28, 2025

So whether I'm going to sue Google in the future for that is up in the air.

A prospective filing named against a specific, later-actual defendant, 88 days before the first tracked Google action was filed. Tiered Moderate rather than Strong because no case existed on the publish date and none is identified in the words — the Strong rubric needs an identified case plus a core factor, and a prospective filing is neither. Tier: Moderate (Threatened or prospective filing)

Why this classification: Moderate because he names Google as a possible future defendant 88 days before the first tracked Google action was filed, but frames it only as "up in the air" — no case existed on the publish date and none is identified in the words, so it cannot reach Strong.

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

Google Reviews for Doctors ARE FAKE · April 28, 2025

But any sort of online review thing, these doctors pay a lot of money to have all of the negative reviews removed. And on top of that, most of the good reviews are completely fake and fabricated.

States the wrong that C018 and C058 plead — paid removal of negative reviews — before either was filed, and states it as a general market practice rather than as a claim against a particular defendant. Tier: Moderate (No filing-conduct factor)

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

EYE UPDATE 10 Surgeries and 20 Months after Taban Botch · June 28, 2025

Yeah. I mean, I I really can't recommend that anyone ever get cosmetic surgery because the reputation of these doctors is completely fabricated. You know, Google reviews, Real Self, all that stuff is controlled.

He names both defendants of a case that did not yet exist. C018, Tufano v. Google (Lackawanna 2025-05634, in the Google / RealSelf dispute), was filed 2025-07-25 — twenty-seven days after publication — against Google, Alphabet Inc and RealSelf Inc, and its recorded refiling basis describes the wrong pleaded as "suppression of his negative reviews on Google's platform." The grievance in this sentence is that review platforms are controlled so as to fabricate a surgeon's reputation. "Real Self" is the captions' split-word rendering of RealSelf — a caption defect this research has already documented; the spelling as captioned matches no tracked name until the words are joined.

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

You can’t “research” Doctors WHO CONTROL THEIR REVIEWS · September 10, 2025

And this is why I filed the lawsuit against Google and Real Self for manipulating their reviews because if they were 100% truthful, I would have never gotten this surgery.

Confirms in the past tense that he filed the review-manipulation suit, names both platform defendants, and states the reliance theory in one sentence: truthful reviews would have deterred the surgery.

Why this classification: Moderate because he confirms a filing he has made, a non-core factor, and gives no count and no sequence of suits, so the repeat-filing reading carried by other statements on this channel is not available here. Naming RealSelf alongside Google is what fixes which Google action is meant, since RealSelf is a defendant in that action and in no other tracked Google case.

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

You can’t “research” Doctors WHO CONTROL THEIR REVIEWS · September 10, 2025

Guys can search up that lawsuit. Frank Tfano versus Google LLC.

He gives the case caption on camera and tells viewers to look it up. That is rare on this channel, where references are normally to having sued someone with no identifier attached.

Why this classification: Moderate because confirming a filing is a non-core factor, but the identification is the strongest in this batch: the caption is spoken in the transcript itself, not carried by the title, and it matches the federal styling of the tracked action. The surname as captioned is a known recurring garble of the plaintiff's own name.

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

Google is HIDING BAD REVIEWS for Doctors!!! · September 24, 2025

There's there's a few new negative reviews there, which is why I filed a lawsuit against Google because if they were being truthful about their reviews, it's a very likely possibility that I would have never gotten this surgery.

States in the past tense that the speaker has filed a lawsuit against Google, and gives the reliance theory behind it, that truthful reviews would have deterred him from the surgery.

Why this classification: A filing is confirmed on camera against a named tracked defendant about a month after the federal docket opened, but no case number or court is given and the statement reports an existing docket rather than any repeat filing.

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

Is Dr. Taban the BIGGEST BUTCHER OF BEVERLY HILLS!? · October 10, 2025

He tricks patients with all of these fake reviews, this fake reputation he's paid for [...] And then when he messes up, you can't do anything. He pay — he gets the review taken down. He pays off Google. He pays off real self. All the lawyers are bought and paid for. You can't defend yourself. No one finds out he botched you cuz they control everything. And he laughs.

Names three tracked defendants in one passage and states the theory that ties them together, that the surgeon pays Google and RealSelf to remove adverse reviews. These are unproven allegations against tracked parties and the archive takes no position on them.

Why this classification: The parties are identified by name and the passage is the plain-language version of the connection the review-platform dispute group is built on, but no case, court or docket is named and no filing conduct is described.

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

Google is Helping Doctors BOTCH YOU!!! · October 24, 2025

I filed a lawsuit against Google myself explaining what happened, showing this evidence, but I mean, I guarantee it's going to go nowhere. These evil people control the court system and they don't care about anything besides themselves.

Confirms on camera that he has sued Google, a tracked defendant, states the theory of the suit, and predicts it will go nowhere because the courts are controlled by the defendants' side.

Why this classification: Moderate on two non-core factors: he confirms a filing he has made, and he alleges the forum is captured. Neither is a core factor and no repeat filing, post-adverse-decision action or cost-imposition motive is described. On the 2025-10-24 publication date only two Google actions were live, and the later Lackawanna Google action cannot be the referent because it was not filed until 2026-01-16.

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

Google Censors my Business and SHOWS FAKE PAGE · October 25, 2025

Not only is Google helping surgeons butcher people, they're also harassing small business like mine. So, when you search my business name, Frankie Strange Meat, this fake profile pops up with 33 reviews, 3.4 star rating. I can't manage this. I can't control this. It's like a fake review page for my own business.

States the review and search-visibility grievance against Google in his own words, alleging an uncontrollable fake profile for his business, and in the same sentence joins that grievance to the surgery dispute. No case, docket number or court is named anywhere in the video.

Why this classification: It restates a pleaded grievance against a named tracked defendant, which is more than general commentary, but no filing is described, announced or threatened, so it stays at Moderate.

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

Google Censors my Business and SHOWS FAKE PAGE · October 25, 2025

The real review page, which you can't even really find on Google, has almost 500 reviews. And since it's legitimate, it's actually much better. And this also shows how they control the search algorithm. They don't want you buying from my business, Frankie Serrange Meat.

Alleges that Google deliberately controls its search algorithm to suppress the genuine review page for his business, the business-harm limb of the same grievance. Recorded as his allegation; no position is taken on whether any profile is fake or any ranking manipulated.

Why this classification: Same footing as the preceding statement: a named tracked defendant and a pleaded subject matter, but no case identified and no filing conduct of his own described, which fixes it at Moderate.

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

Is your Doctors Reputation LEGIT!? · November 22, 2025

The scariest part about all of this plastic surgery stuff is that these doctors can completely fabricate their reputation by paying off Google. It's actually it's insane. And I've made several videos on this, so I won't go into depth.

States the substance of the tracked search and review platform grievance in his own words, that doctors can fabricate a reputation by paying a search platform. Both cases in that dispute were pending when this was published. He also says he has made several videos on this, a pointer to further channel material.

Why this classification: Names a tracked defendant on the transcript and states the theory underlying that dispute, but reports, announces and threatens no suit, and identifies no case, court or docket.

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

Review Platforms SENDING CATTLE TO SLAUGHTER · November 27, 2025

You know who also should be in prison? And I'm not joking. The executives and higherups at these review sites. Whether it's Google or Real Self, even Yelp, all of these plastic surgery review sites and recommendations. Even the moderators on forums like Reddit that have plastic surgery sections.

The transcript names tracked defendants outright rather than by role: two search and review platforms and a forum, which are the defendants in the tracked platform disputes. One platform he names, Yelp, is not a party to any tracked case. The opening word also indicates the clip continues earlier content whose subject cannot be recovered from it.

Why this classification: Names tracked defendants from the transcript rather than the title, but describes no filing, no case and no court, and the accusation concerns the platforms' conduct rather than his own litigation.

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

Google wants Doctors TO BOTCH YOU!!! · January 17, 2026

Google wants you to get botched because that is how they make the most money. Surgeons pay Google for fake reviews which drives business to them. Then they operate on you with their fraudulent skill level, mess you up, and then you go to leave a bad review, but then they say, "Oh, if you pay us more money, we'll take down the bad review.

States the substantive theory behind the tracked Google actions, naming Google in the transcript rather than only in the title: that surgeons pay for favourable reviews and that negative reviews are removed for further payment. The closing clause voices an imagined counterparty and is not a quotation of anything anyone said.

Why this classification: It states the allegation at the centre of the tracked review-suppression actions and names the defendant aloud, but it describes no filing, threat or court outcome, and no case number or court is identified.

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

Did Dr. Taban BOTCH ME ON PURPOSE?! · February 19, 2026

Uh, other things in favor of that are me not getting compensated, him getting away with it completely, you know, all the Google reviews being removed, anything negative about this doctor being wiped completely off online.

Applies the review-suppression theory of the tracked Google actions to the surgeon in the eye-surgery dispute, offering the removal of negative reviews and his own lack of compensation as circumstantial support for an intentional-harm theory. This ties two tracked dispute groups together in one sentence.

Why this classification: Connects two tracked dispute groups and reports that he has not been compensated, but the link is drawn by subject matter rather than by anything the speaker identifies, and no filing conduct is described.

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

Google is ON TABANS PAYROLL!!! · May 1, 2026

Dr. Tiban is back to the perfect five-star rating, baby. Google at the top of the payroll every single week. They wipe his reviews back to five stars. Literal perfect fivestar rating. But if I log into my personal Google account, I suddenly see my one-star review.

States outside any pleading the factual core of the tracked Google action: that his one-star review of the surgeon is visible when he logs into his own account but that the listing shows a perfect rating to everyone else. It describes the opposing parties' alleged conduct, not his own filing behaviour.

Why this classification: The statement restates in the speaker's own words the review-suppression wrong pleaded in the tracked Google actions, but it names no case number, court or docket and describes no filing conduct.

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

Google is ON TABANS PAYROLL!!! · May 1, 2026

That's why I have a lawsuit against Google that is of course just getting thrown out by the judge because yeah, the judge is going to be on Google's payroll.

Three things in one sentence: he confirms a suit on foot against a tracked defendant, reports it as being thrown out, and attributes that to the judge being on the defendant's payroll. The judge is not named on camera.

Why this classification: It confirms a filing already made and reports an adverse outcome, both docket-facing facts, alongside an allegation of judicial bias, but none of these is conduct of the repeat-filing kind and no case number, court or judge is identified.

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

Dr Taban WIPED BAD REVIEWS · May 25, 2026

The majority of the negative reviews about Dr. Tibon on Google, Real Self, and Yelp have been completely wiped clean and removed. Whether this is Dr. Tibon or a private party or just the review sites taking them down on their own, I cannot say that for certain factually.

The subject and the platforms named are all tracked entities, and the statement describes the factual grievance underlying the two review-platform actions. Its second sentence is an express refusal to attribute the removals to anyone, and the two sentences must be kept together.

Why this classification: It names tracked defendants and states the grievance, but describes platform conduct rather than his own filing conduct, and no case, court or docket appears anywhere in the video.

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

Dr Taban WIPED BAD REVIEWS · May 25, 2026

And when I tried to put my review on Real Self, showing receipts from the doctor's office, the photos, it was never even posted in the first place. And you cannot have a more legitimate review than that. So, these platforms are really crooked, really evil, and as I've said many times, should be held as equally responsible for botching people as the doctor himself. If anything, they're more responsible.

A statement of the theory of liability against the review platforms, that they are as responsible as the surgeon or more so, which is the theory the two tracked platform actions pursue. He marks it as a position he has stated many times.

Why this classification: It states a theory of liability rather than an act of filing, and the platforms are identified by trade name only, with no case, court or docket referenced.

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

Google Realself Yelp ALL FAKE!!! · June 3, 2026

No, because Real Self is still doing the same stuff that these other review platforms are. They are taking bribes from doctors and removing negative reviews.

States outside any pleading the substance of the wrong he attributes to the review platforms, removal of negative reviews in exchange for payment, which is the subject matter the dataset records for the Google and RealSelf action.

Why this classification: Describes the alleged conduct of the opposing parties rather than any filing of his own, so no filing-conduct factor applies. It is a party allegation with no source offered and no judicial finding behind it.

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

Google Realself Yelp ALL FAKE!!! · June 3, 2026

And I have multiple lawsuits against these people. Uh the main lawsuit is against Google, Real Self, Yelp, all these review platforms.

A self-report of filing volume, multiple lawsuits, plus confirmation that a suit is on foot against a named set of platforms. Two of the three named targets are tracked defendants; the third, Yelp, does not appear anywhere in the dataset.

Why this classification: Records a self-reported count of suits and a confirmed filing, but neither is one of the three core filing-conduct factors and no case, court or docket number is named on camera, so it falls short of the published Strong rubric.

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

Cops Murder Doctors Botch NO CONSEQUENCES · August 12, 2026

They're removing all the negative that's that was another lawsuit that just got thrown out. That's if anything that's almost more ridiculous than this Tiban lawsuit getting dismissed because Google and Real Self are literally just deleting all the negative reviews.

Reports two dismissals in one passage - the medical action and a review-platform action. The archive records that the dates do not line up cleanly, so the second case is not established.

Why this classification: Reports two dismissals; docket facts rather than conduct.

Transcript-verified verbatim quote