Source-linked public-record research into lawsuits, outcomes, related proceedings, court rulings, public statements and litigation chronology.
3:23-cv-02106 · U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania
Evidentiary treatment: This summarizes the plaintiff's own allegations as stated in the complaint or docket record cited below. It reflects what was filed, not a court finding, and is not a determination that the allegations are true.
Plaintiff alleges that defendant Jake Levy purchased samples of his “Best Bar” protein-bar product in 2020 with intent to copy its formula, product line, and marketing, and that Levy (through Better Life Foods, Inc., later joined by Norman and Robyn Levy) subsequently sold a “Whey Better Bar” with an allegedly identical ingredient formulation via a TikTok shop. The amended complaint pleads four counts: two claims under Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, a state-law claim for misappropriation of trade secrets, and unjust enrichment.
Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages of no less than $150,000, punitive damages, and a cease-and-desist order barring sale of the “Whey Better Bar.” Sourced via a casemine.com judgment page (direct fetch returned 403; corroborated across multiple independent search passes) rather than a direct read of the complaint.
This page separates court/ruling records, party filings, research classifications, secondary sources and public statements. Unknown or unresolved fields remain labelled as such.
Outcome reason: Dismissed after repeated opportunities to amend for failure to establish subject-matter jurisdiction; the final adoption of the R&R is cited in a later M.D. Pa. order. Update 2026-08-25: The Oct. 11, 2024 memorandum was read in full. It adopts the fourth report and recommendation in the case and dismisses the fourth amended complaint for want of subject-matter jurisdiction, without prejudice and expressly without further leave to amend. The no-further-leave-to-amend element was not previously recorded here.
Research status: Source-backed (memorandum read in full via the RECAP document store)
Research notes: The Sept. 18, 2024 R&R recommended dismissal without prejudice; a later M.D. Pa. order cites adoption on Oct. 11, 2024.
Findings recorded only where they are tied to an order, opinion or report and recommendation.
Record labels distinguish final orders/opinions, reports and recommendations, non-final orders, and tentative/indexed ruling records.
R&R recommended dismissal without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction after repeated opportunities to amend; the later district order is cited as adopting the R&R on Oct. 11, 2024.
September 18, 2024 ruling source — casemine.com ↗Sequence does not by itself prove motive or causation.
Tufano filed federal complaint C039 against Better Life Foods Inc. and Jake, Norman, and Robyn Levy.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗C039 was dismissed without prejudice for failure to establish subject-matter jurisdiction, after repeated opportunities to amend.
Source — casemine.com ↗Tufano filed C036 in Lackawanna County, naming Better Life Foods Inc. and the same three Levy defendants from C039 among many others, roughly 17 months after C039 was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Source — lpa-homes.org ↗Public statements are displayed separately from court findings. Quotations are transcribed from the video’s own YouTube auto-generated captions and timestamped from the caption cues covering the passage quoted. The Strong / Moderate / Context tier is this project’s research classification of how closely a statement bears on the documented filing patterns — it is not a judicial finding. Any second badge names the filing-restriction factor the statement’s own words describe; it records what the speaker said, not that a court found it.
How quotations are marked: An ellipsis (…) inside a quotation marks words left out between two passages of the same video, which can sit some minutes apart. The omitted wording is not reproduced here, and a clip on the statement supercut plays the whole span from the quotation’s first word to its last — so it includes the omitted material. Quotations without an ellipsis are continuous speech.
a lot of you guys have been asking when the best bars are going to be back in stock we have them available for pre-order on the website Frankie freerange foods.com through next week so if You' [= you'd] like to get first dibs it's our original formula as always grass food we protein [= grass-fed whey protein] grass food beef Tallow [= grass-fed beef tallow] raw honey organic chocolate for the chocolate flavor we got some organic vanilla in there and some sea salt
The strongest finding among the statements researched from this video. The speaker names his product — "the best bars" — asserts it is "our original formula as always," and then recites the formula: whey protein, beef tallow, raw honey, vanilla, sea salt (plus organic chocolate for the chocolate variant). That is, to the ingredient, the recipe the tracked pleadings describe. C036's recorded claims summary reads: "Plaintiff alleges he created a proprietary protein-bar recipe, 'Best Bar,' on Dec. 1, 2020, combining whey protein powder, beef fat tallow, honey, vanilla, and salt in a formulation he says is unique enough that no other maker would independently arrive at it" — repeated for C068 (the removed federal half of the same action), and the same "Best Bar" product is the subject of C039 and C093. Published 2023-12-15, it is a five-day pre-filing statement: C039 (Tufano v. Levy et al, M.D. Pa. 3:23-cv-02106) was filed 2023-12-20. It describes no filing conduct at all — no suit, threat, court, opponent or copying is mentioned — hence No filing-conduct factor and a Moderate, not Strong, tier. Its value is as evidence of the product and its claimed originality in his own words, in the window before the first action over it, not as a statement about litigation. No party is named: Levy, Better Life, "Whey Better Bar" and words like copy, stole or theft occur nowhere in the video's captions. The case link rests on the product, the recited formula and the date — not on a name, and not on the title.
Watch / source — youtube.com ↗best bars the chocolate vanilla Berry but we do have them on pre-order if you guys want to support me instead of the uh the clown chills [= clown shills? unresolved] copying me
A second, independent copying statement about the Best Bar in the same video, 20 minutes earlier than the other researched statement from this video and framed as a purchase appeal — buy mine instead of the copiers'. Two separate on-camera references to the same grievance the day before C039 was filed is materially stronger than one. “Clown chills” is a plural pejorative, not a name, and it matches nothing in the captions or the dataset; the intended word is most likely “shills”, but that reading is not adopted. No party is identified. The reasoning is the same as for the other statement: this describes being copied and asks viewers to buy from him. It describes no filing conduct, so the factor is No filing-conduct factor and the tier is Moderate.
Watch at 06:54 — youtube.com ↗I I take a lot of pride in the in the health and nutrition bars I've made and the Cookie Bars because there's nothing else really like them on the market it's also why we were played rizon [= plagiarized] copied on the best bar which is whole other headache that I'm not getting into today
One of the strongest findings in this research. Published 2023-12-19; C039 (Tufano v. Levy et al, M.D. Pa. 3:23-cv-02106) was filed 2023-12-20 — one day later, a plain date difference with both dates stated. The statement names the grievance that C039 pleads: C039's claims summary records that defendant Jake Levy purchased samples of his "Best Bar" protein-bar product in 2020 with intent to copy its formula, product line, and marketing. Here he says, on camera, the day before filing, that he was "played rizon [= plagiarized] copied on the best bar" — naming the product and the grievance, and calling it "a whole other headache that I'm not getting into today," which reads as deliberate withholding of something already in motion. Tiered Moderate, not Strong, and the factor is No filing-conduct factor — deliberately. The Strong tier requires filing conduct of a core-factor kind alongside an identified case. He describes being copied; he does not say he has filed, is filing, will file, or has filed before, or that filing will cost anyone money. "A whole other headache" is suggestive but is not a filing statement; recording a filing factor here would put a conclusion into the classification that the words do not support. No party is named — Levy, Better Life, Whey Better, Jacob, Saladino and TikTok Shop appear nowhere in the video's captions; the link is made on product plus grievance plus date, not on a name. These are his own words, not a recited review — the passage sits between two product reviews in the video.
Why this classification: He names the "best bar" plagiarism grievance that C039 pleads on camera one day before that complaint was filed, but he describes being copied and calls it "a whole other headache" rather than saying he has filed, will file, or has filed before, so the filing side is unstated and the tier stays Moderate.
Watch at 26:36 — youtube.com ↗so a lot of you saw it my best bar recipe flavors every single thing marketing was identically copied by this guy I'm not going to even mention it the name of it or him
This is the C039 grievance stated by its own product name, published 9 days after C039 was filed (2023-12-20 → 2023-12-29, a plain date difference) and squarely inside its pendency. C039's claims summary pleads that “defendant Jake Levy purchased samples of his 'Best Bar' protein-bar product in 2020 with intent to copy its formula, product line, and marketing” — the video's “recipe flavors every single thing marketing” is the same three-part complaint. The second half is the notable part: with a federal complaint against that person nine days old, he tells viewers on camera he will not name him or the product, for commercial reasons. That is a fact about how this dispute was narrated, not about filing conduct — the video mentions no case, no court, no complaint and no lawyer. The tier is Moderate, with no filing-conduct factor.
Watch at 00:13 — youtube.com ↗another one of these degenerates will copy the idea and do it and point it off [= pawn it off] as their own hey then I'll just get to file another Federal lawsuit got a little more free time boys that's why that's why I'm not down here that's why I'm not down here working killing myself every day I'm studying for the bar exam
The speaker names a condition under which he would file — a competitor copying one of his product ideas and passing it off as their own — and calls the response "another Federal lawsuit", the word another indicating a federal action already on file. It is his own prospective filing conduct, not a docket fact and not the opponent's behaviour, which is what distinguishes it from everything else in this slice. The register is sardonic ("got a little more free time boys", then the joke about studying for the bar exam), and that is recorded rather than smoothed over: it is a wry remark, not a formal announcement, and it names no case, court, docket or defendant. Tiered Moderate rather than Strong for exactly that reason — no case is identified in the words themselves, and Threatened or prospective filing is not one of the three core factors. (Tier: Moderate — Threatened or prospective filing)
Watch at 09:10 — youtube.com ↗like it's it's a little uh it's a little discouraging but what what's really discouraging and that's when I that's when I start filing lawsuits is uh is when people start copying those ideas that I like cuz cuz and I don't really want to get too much into this but especially with the best bar that kid that copied it like he copied the exact idea exact flavors and was selling the bar for double the price that I was
The speaker states his own filing trigger in the general case — "that's when I start filing lawsuits is … when people start copying those ideas" — and then immediately grounds it in a specific grievance: "especially with the best bar that kid that copied it … he copied the exact idea exact flavors and was selling the bar for double the price that I was." That is, sentence for sentence, the grievance C039 pleads. This is the clearest statement in this slice of a stated causal rule for filing, made by the filer, in his own words, four weeks after filing exactly such an action. Note "the best bar" is spelled correctly by the captions here — the archive documents this same phrase being mangled elsewhere as Jacob Bar (from "the best bar idea") and best for idea, so this file is a clean rendering of a term that usually is not. (Tier: Moderate — Filing announced or confirmed)
Watch at 16:11 — youtube.com ↗I should give you guys an update on the lawsuit but uh well sum it up short I got given a Jewish judge and then probably going to dismiss the case before anything gets done but go figure what did I expect if you guys missed that we someone copied the best of our product and we we got banned and our videos got taken down
A live-litigation update on a pending tracked case. C039 (Tufano v. Levy et al, M.D. Pa. 3:23-cv-02106, filed 2023-12-20, part of the Better Life / Levy product dispute) was pending on this publish date (dismissed only on 2024-10-11), and its recorded claims summary pleads that Jake Levy "purchased samples of his 'Best Bar' protein-bar product... with intent to copy its formula" — matching this quote's "someone copied the best of our product" almost verbatim. The line predicting an unfavorable outcome and attributing it to the judge's presumed religion is transcribed verbatim, exactly as captioned; the research takes no position on whether that characterization has any basis, and it is flagged explicitly because it reflects the speaker's own stated reasoning about forum/judicial treatment rather than any court finding. The "banned... videos got taken down" clause describes a platform action (not a court ruling) and is kept in the same quote only because it is spoken in the same breath as the case update.
Why this classification: Confirms a pending lawsuit of his own over the copied 'Best Bar' product and predicts it will be dismissed because of the assigned judge's presumed religion, alleging forum bias while describing no new or repeat filing.
Watch at 17:35 — youtube.com ↗off with complaining but as you guys know a lot of corporate chills continually harassing my business um you know leaving fake reviews filing fraudulent charge backs just stealing from me on top of all the shadow Banning and everything and stuff that I've dealt with the lawsuits and everything so whatever way you guys can support me
“Corporate chills” is a caption garble of “corporate shills” — earlier research has already established that rendering three separate ways across several other videos, and this video, published 2024-02-26, is an additional, independently-found attestation of it. The specific grievance — customers “hired” as agents of a corporate opponent to leave fake reviews, file fraudulent chargebacks, and shadow-ban the business — is the exact pleaded theory of C040 (Tufano v. Frankies Free Range Meat Conspirators, filed 2024-05-22, 86 days after this video) and the broader conspiracy-litigation cluster (C040/C047/C050/C054/C072/C095), whose claims summaries describe chargebacks, “slanderous reviews,” and a chargebacks/negative-reviews-as-conspiracy theory in nearly identical language. Earlier research on another video, published 72 days before the filing, records the plaintiff stating this theory “in his own words” before C040 was filed; this video adds another, earlier data point to that pre-filing chronology. Separately, “I've dealt with the lawsuits and everything” states that litigation is already under way at the time of this video — most plausibly referring to C039 (Tufano v. Levy et al, filed 2023-12-20, pending throughout this window), though the plural is not attributed to a specific docket here.
Watch at 02:19 — youtube.com ↗this kid Jake Levy completely copied my best bar and has been selling it for over 6 months now identical like carbon copy exactly like tea for tea recipe marketing flavors every single thing I've been selling those bars since November of last year at almost double the price of my best bar it was called way better bar now actually rebranded to the Jacob bar oh he's so creative uh probably because he found out about the lawsuit and consulted with the lawyer and that's what the lawyer recommended
The earliest statement on this channel of the product-name chain in the Better Life / Levy product dispute — Best Bar → "way better bar" → "the Jacob bar" — and the only one that dates the rename and attributes a cause to it. The claims summary recorded for C039 pleads that "Jake Levy purchased samples of his 'Best Bar' protein-bar product in 2020 with intent to copy its formula, product line, and marketing" and that Levy "subsequently sold a 'Whey Better Bar' with an allegedly identical ingredient formulation"; the caption's way better bar is the ordinary whey/way homophone of the pleaded product name. Filing announced or confirmed rather than a core factor: the only filing referenced is C039 itself, already on the docket, and the sentence is about the opponent's conduct.
Watch at 01:39 — youtube.com ↗so we filed the lawsuit back in December of last year uh toono V Levy case 3 colon 23 CV 02106 uh so to sum it up I been arguing the case jurisdiction with a federal judge for almost 6 months the jurisdiction was proven in the first filing of the complaint all residences and domiciles of all parties involved in the case are clear there there's no there's no doubt at all but the judge is saying oh that's not adequate and to my understanding this is basically these people protecting each other
The pivotal quote from this video, and the least ambiguous case identification among the statements researched from it. He speaks the docket number aloud — “3 colon 23 CV 02106” — and the case tracker records C039 as 3:23-cv-02106, filed 2023-12-20, matching “December of last year” exactly. Nothing here has to be inferred from the title, from a garbled name, or from a topical match. He then states, in the same breath, that the jurisdictional ruling is “these people protecting each other” — a forum-bias allegation attached to a specific, identified federal docket. This is a public statement, not a court finding and not a research classification; the record is that he said it.
Watch at 03:13 — youtube.com ↗and now you know if you aren't in the club doesn't matter what you do on social media doesn't matter if you you know file an official lawsuit in a literal Federal Courthouse they're just going to screw you because they think they deserve more than everyone else now if I actually hired a lawyer who are all in the club and spent tens of thousands of dollars they might have played me you know done the charades a little bit pretended like they were going to do something but since I'm proos say since I've been screwed Enough by these jerk offs to figure out how to do this myself and I'm not giving them any money
States the reason he litigates pro se — that counsel are “all in the club” and would take “tens of thousands of dollars” to perform “the charades”. The case tracker records him proceeding pro se in C039 and in all of the 100-plus actions he has commenced; this is the speaker's own account of why. It is also the clearest statement of the “club” framing that recurs in this period — the same phrase appears in a video published ten days earlier.
Watch at 04:57 — youtube.com ↗I've made about 15 filings and again kid hasn't even received the summons yet it's it's so it's so it's asinine and I've been arguing with this judge for 6 months while he has been selling These Bars
a self-reported count of docket activity, five months into C039. Self-reported filing volume was considered and deliberately DECLINED — the factor's definition is "gives his own count of how many suits he has filed", and fifteen is a count of motions and papers inside a single docket, not of actions. Labelling it otherwise would inflate a within-case procedural count into an actions count, which is exactly the error the closed vocabulary exists to prevent. The call is recorded here so a promotion pass does not silently re-make it.
Watch at 05:49 — youtube.com ↗too much you know I I $2,000 chargebacks these other people leaving negative reviews on my business this stuff happening every week you know that that kid that stole my best for idea the court doesn't care at all
"That kid that stole my best for idea" is "that kid that stole my Best Bar idea" — C039 (Tufano v. Levy et al, M.D. Pa., filed 2023-12-20), whose claims summary pleads that Jake Levy bought samples of his "Best Bar" protein bar in order to copy the formula. The sentence places the dispute in a documented chain: on 2024-07-02 the case was still live (the recorded litigation timeline shows C039 dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction on 2024-10-11), and he is already saying "the court doesn't care at all" — 101 days before that dismissal and 135 days before he refiled the same dispute in New York as C093 (filed 2024-11-14), which the tracker codes as a refiling of C039 and records as a filing-restriction indicator. This is contemporaneous evidence of the dissatisfaction that preceded a coded refiling, from inside the interval, which is precisely what a docket cannot supply.
Watch at 20:44 — youtube.com ↗so I filed about a dozen lawsuits Al together and every single one of them was dismissed by a judge as I said before I could even serve the opposing Council papers
both halves are checkable. Volume: 21 docket records exist on or before 2025-01-08, of which 20 were filed by him — so "about a dozen" understates the tracker, unless he means only the 2023–2025 federal/state run (C039, C040, C041, C042, C043, C044, C045, C046, C001, C002, C092, C093, C101 = thirteen), for which it is close to exact. Outcomes: a documented cluster of dismissals precedes this video — C042 (2024-11-13), C040 (2024-12-09), C044 (2024-12-11), C041 (2024-12-16), C043 (2024-12-30), the last of those nine days before publication. But "every single one" is overbroad on the same date: C045, C046, C101, C001 and C002 were all live.
Watch at 02:02 — youtube.com ↗the best bars uh vanilla chocolate strawberry maybe have to update you guys on that lawsuit but uh nothing ever goes my way so go figure
The only reference to a lawsuit in the video, and it arrives mid-sentence while he is reading out bar flavours. The sentence's own subject is his Best Bar product, which is the product at the centre of the Better Life / Levy product dispute — C039 (Tufano v. Levy et al, M.D. Pa., filed 2023-12-20) was dismissed 2024-10-11, and C093 (Frank Tufano v. Jake Levy et al, NY Supreme, filed 2024-11-14) was pending on the day this was published. "Nothing ever goes my way" is a general expression of pessimism about the case; it is not a report of a ruling, so the quote does not carry Adverse outcome described.
Watch at 03:47 — youtube.com ↗They've been copied and astroturfed. Whether it's the best bars by uh that kid Jake Levy, uh the beef tallow chips have been copied by Vandy. Uh the honey ice cream is that guy ice cream for bears. That's where he got the idea. He stole it from me.
The longest-lead pre-filing statement found in this stretch of the research. Two of the three parties are tracked, both named with the grievance the eventual complaint pleads, and no filing is announced or even hinted at. "Ice cream for bears... He stole it from me" points to Ice Cream for Bears LLC and C070, Tufano v. Ice Cream for Bears LLC et al, filed 2026-04-20 — 290 days after publication. Earlier research had anchored the same case's pre-filing lead at 210 days via a video published 2025-09-22; C070 therefore now has two independently dated pre-filing statements, and this is the earlier by nearly three months. "The best bars by uh that kid Jake Levy" names Jake Levy of the Better Life / Levy product dispute — but a direction and chronology caution is recorded in the research notes, and that reference is not a pre-filing statement. "Copied by Vandy" matches nothing in the tracked records; it is unresolved, not ruled out.
Watch at 04:00 — youtube.com ↗Of course, we have the best bars, which are the original bar that that kid copied that I still haven't gotten compensated from in court. That's a whole different story for another video.
The load-bearing quote from this video. He states, unprompted and inside a product walkthrough, that a competing product copied his protein bar and that he has litigated and not recovered ("in court"). That is a reported case outcome against him — a docket fact, not filing conduct — and it is the only reference to a court anywhere in 25 minutes. The subject matter (a copied food bar, a young competitor) matches the Better Life / Levy product dispute exactly.
Watch at 22:33 — youtube.com ↗Jake Levy should be in jail for theft of trade secrets. But because I'm not in the club, because I'm not a member of the elite, he's able to steal my formulas and products and make millions of dollars off of them. He's the original culprit.
Names a tracked defendant and identifies him as the origin of the product dispute, with the not-in-the-club framing that recurs across the channel. It also asserts he should be in jail for theft of trade secrets, an unadjudicated criminal characterisation of a civil dispute; no criminal proceeding against either target appears anywhere in the dataset.
Why this classification: The individual named is a defendant in tracked actions and the statement identifies him as the origin of the dispute, but it describes no filing conduct and names no case, court or docket.
Watch / source — youtube.com ↗So, he ordered the bars off my website, the best bar that I came up with 5 years ago, sent these bars to a manufacturer to be replicated. And ever since 2023, he's been selling these bars. Originally called the Way Better Bar, but then after all these online accusations, he changed the name to the Jacob Bar.
The clearest statement of what the Best Bar dispute alleges: the mechanism he describes, ordering the product and sending it to a manufacturer to replicate, the start date he gives, and the renaming of the competing bar. It was published twelve days before the tracked state case was filed.
Why this classification: It sets out the underlying facts of a tracked dispute in his own words shortly before the action pleading them was filed, but it describes no filing conduct and names no case, court or docket.
Watch at 00:16 — youtube.com ↗for these Best Bars, this is actually the original formula that I keep complaining people steal, the whey protein, beef tallow, and honey. And then we have our flavor, whether it's vanilla or chocolate. In the case of berry, I mean, I can't even afford to to buy new pouches. And that's what happens when you get shadowbanned and censored and people steal your ideas and take advantage of you.
He identifies on camera the specific product and the specific three-ingredient formula that is the subject matter of the tracked trade-secret litigation, and states the business harm he attributes to its copying. The same three ingredients are recited in a sibling video ten days earlier.
Why this classification: It restates a pleaded claim and identifies the product at its centre, which is why it bears on the tracked actions, but it describes others' alleged conduct rather than any filing of his own, and names no case, court, party or docket.
Watch at 00:14 — youtube.com ↗what I consider it a trade secret my new egg packaging is a trade secret even though as soon as I said that one of you guys are probably going to take pictures of it and post it online
C039's amended complaint pleads, among four counts, "a state-law claim for misappropriation of trade secrets" — and this video, published 20 days after that complaint was filed, contains a running joke about a trade secret, which the uploader chaptered in his own description as 12:14 - tRaDE sEcReTS with mocking capitalisation. Recorded because the vocabulary and the timing are unlikely to be independent, not because the words assert anything: the subject is egg packaging, no case, court or party is named, and nothing about filing conduct is described. Purely contextual. (Tier: Context — No filing-conduct factor)
Watch at 12:19 — youtube.com ↗Each video has its own research page with its verified publish date, timestamped statements and case links. A researched link between a video and a docket record is not a finding of causation in either direction.
Frank Tufano Litigation Research. "Tufano v. Levy et al (3:23-cv-02106)". Research last verified September 23, 2026. https://suedbyfranktufano.com/cases/3-23-cv-02106-tufano-v-levy-et-al/