Source-linked public-record research into lawsuits, outcomes, related proceedings, court rulings, public statements and litigation chronology.
3:24-cv-01114 · 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 he was permanently banned from Reddit approximately five years before filing (around 2019), shortly after posting YouTube videos accusing other content creators of copying and plagiarizing his work, and that Reddit maintained the ban to shield corporate-sponsored “fake” content creators from competition while permitting slanderous posts about him to remain online.
The complaint pleads Sherman Antitrust Act, “refusal to deal,” “monopoly power,” and FTC Act claims, plus criminal conspiracy under 18 Pa. C.S. § 903 and a request for pre-complaint discovery.
He seeks judgment on each claim and compensatory damages of no less than $1,325,000, his estimated lost business revenue from being unable to use the platform over five years.
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: Claims were dismissed as time-barred; the adopted screening analysis also found multiple claims failed to state a claim. No further leave to amend was allowed because amendment would be futile.
Research status: Source-backed
Research notes: Final order expressly deemed any appeal frivolous and not taken in good faith. Third Circuit appeal 25-1014 was dismissed Mar. 21, 2025.
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.
Final order dismissed the action and expressly deemed any appeal frivolous and not taken in good faith; no further leave to amend was granted because amendment would be futile.
December 11, 2024 ruling source — casemine.com ↗Appeals taken from this docket record, with what the research does and does not establish about each.
Taking an appeal is a party’s filing, not a ruling — only an appellate court’s own disposition is a finding, and a disposition recorded here is a docket fact rather than reasoning unless the order itself was read. An appeal continues the action it arises from, so appeals are never counted as additional lawsuits: the case and originating-action counts published elsewhere on this site are unaffected by this section. Where a docket number or a current status is not recorded, that is a stated gap in the research, not a finding that none exists. See Methodology.
Recorded in the case record as dismissed 2025-03-21, the same day the two companion appeals from the July 2024 filings (Nos. 25-1015 and 25-1016) were resolved. The district court's final order had expressly deemed any appeal frivolous and not taken in good faith -- a district-court certification, not a disposition by this court, which recorded no reason.
Record source — courtlistener.com ↗Strength labels are research classifications, not judicial declarations that the litigant is vexatious.
Court dismissed the case, denied further amendment as futile, and expressly deemed any appeal frivolous and not taken in good faith; the Third Circuit appeal was later dismissed.
Source — casemine.com ↗Sequence does not by itself prove motive or causation.
Tufano filed federal complaint C044 against Reddit, Inc.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Claims were dismissed as time-barred and for failure to state a claim, with no further leave to amend; the order expressly deemed any appeal frivolous and not taken in good faith. The Third Circuit appeal (25-1014) was later dismissed Mar. 21, 2025.
Source — casemine.com ↗Tufano filed a second, original federal complaint against Reddit, Inc. (C056; not a removal), about 8 months after C044 was dismissed with an appeal-frivolous finding.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗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.
These quotations can no longer be checked at their source. Every quotation on this site was transcribed from the speaker’s own YouTube channel. That channel was removed in October 2026; on 23 October 2026 all 980 catalogued video ids returned “not found”, and the channel address itself no longer resolves. YouTube’s own basis for removing it is not part of any record this project can verify, so none is asserted here. Nothing was withdrawn by this project.
What survives is the evidence, not the link. The verbatim caption transcript each quotation was read from was archived, dated, at the time the video was catalogued, and the timestamp on each card is the moment in that transcript where the words appear. The transcripts are held unaltered and are not republished. What a reader can no longer do is open the original and hear it, and nothing on this site can restore that. Seventy-four statements — those whose own words name a core filing-restriction factor — survive as clips in this project’s own compilation, and those cards link into it at the right moment. Nothing else is re-hosted. See Methodology.
And I've submitted uh forms to Reddit to get this taken down. But hey, this is uh I guess another excuse for me to file a lawsuit, right? I did file a federal lawsuit against Reddit once. Uh the corrupt federal judge just dismissed it. So I guess we'll have to file some fresh paperwork to the state court. And uh this whole subreddit definitely gave me some ammunition to do [that].
This is the most on-point statement for the site's subject matter located anywhere in this research. In one breath he (a) characterizes the grievance as "another excuse for me to file a lawsuit," (b) states that a federal suit against the same defendant was dismissed, and (c) announces he will therefore "file some fresh paperwork to the state court" — a refiling in a different forum after an adverse federal disposition, announced in advance and on camera. The docket matches it step for step This is a public statement, and this project's evidence-layer separation is doing real work
Why this classification: Recounts that his federal suit against Reddit was dismissed, attributes the dismissal to a 'corrupt federal judge,' and says he will therefore 'file some fresh paperwork to the state court' on the same grievance.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:49 in the archived transcript. Play at 8:13 in this project’s compilation ↗
and for what so that these larger influencers can continue to plagiarize and copy what i say word for word just to sell their products the main reason for me making this video today is just to ask you guys to please visit my channel you know don't worry about staying subscribed because i know they're removing people every day if you can bookmark my page visit the channel watch my videos share them with other people share them on facebook
this single span carries both halves of the pattern the sweep is measuring. The grievance is verbatim copying of his content for commercial gain — which is the predicate C044's complaint itself pleads, as the conduct that preceded his Reddit ban. The remedy he states, in the same breath and introduced as "the main reason for me making this video today", is entirely an audience-mobilisation ask: visit, bookmark, watch, share. No lawyer, no claim, no demand letter, no threatened filing. Per the settled rules this takes No filing-conduct factor — it describes no filing conduct, and cost or pressure imposed by publicity rather than by a filing is never the cost-imposition factor. Possible case/dispute link: tentative, unconfirmed. The grievance is an element pleaded in C044 (DSP017), but no party is named in this span and nothing here is a filing.
Source removed. Quoted at 02:13 in the archived transcript.
when these people slander my name on other channels various social media forums review pages whatever it may be that creates a bad first impression for my channel and it it makes it difficult to grow and they create these rumors and these ideas about me and not only were they doing that they had to de-platform me from reddit from facebook my name is completely banned you know i'm banned on instagram too and it really is pathetic they couldn't slander me well enough because people saw the honesty and integrity in my videos
this is the pleaded theory of C044 Tufano v. Reddit, Inc. stated in his own words 1,452 days before that action was filed (2020-07-17 → 2024-07-08, differenced in code). C044's claims summary records that he alleges he was permanently banned from Reddit "approximately five years before filing (around 2019), shortly after posting YouTube videos accusing other content creators of copying and plagiarizing his work, and that Reddit maintained the ban to shield corporate-sponsored 'fake' content creators from competition while permitting slanderous posts about him to remain online." Every element of that appears here: the ban, its persistence, the fake-creator-competition theory ("i am what they are pretending to be" at [6:06]), and slander left in place. This video also corroborates the complaint's own dating — the ban is described as already in force on 2020-07-17, consistent with "around 2019". And it contemplates no legal remedy whatsoever. Possible case/dispute link: C044 and C056 (DSP017, Reddit litigation) — Reddit and Instagram are both tracked defendants, and the pleaded grievance matches in substance and direction. Recorded as grievance-level correspondence only: no proceeding existed in 2020 and this file is not evidence of one.
Source removed. Quoted at 13:46 in the archived transcript.
that 43 year old clown of a doctor last week plagiarizing information from a 26 year old bartender
This is the grievance that the whole Saladino dispute (DSP003) turns on, stated in his own voice on a dated video, and no filing of any kind is mentioned. The dataset records the same grievance as the substance of the dispute: the S.D.N.Y. default judgment of 2025-01-30 in C100 enjoins him from "making public statements that Saladino copied, plagiarized, stole or improperly used Tufano's or another party's work" (court_findings, C100), and C044's claims summary records him as having been banned from a platform "shortly after posting YouTube videos accusing other content creators of copying and plagiarizing his work". What makes this passage worth recording is its date: published 2020-10-22, which is 16 days before 2020-11-07, the date Saladino, MD v. Frank Tufano (C100, S.D.N.Y. 7:20-cv-09346) was filed — computed in code as date(2020,11,7) - date(2020,10,22) = 16. ⚠ No name is spoken. The identification rests on three descriptors that fit and on nothing else: "43 year old", "doctor", and the accusation of plagiarising "a 26 year old bartender" (he describes his own former work as bartending and waiting tables in CghqX9C8K6o, published 2020-11-21). Those are adjacency facts to confirm, not a party link. ⚠ Direction also matters: this is a grievance he voices against a doctor; C100 is a suit against him, pleading Lanham Act false designation, cybersquatting, NY GBL and defamation claims — the opposite direction from the complaint made here. The internal date marker is "last week", which places the event he is reacting to in roughly the week of 2020-10-15 and is consistent with the publish date rather than contradicting it. Possible case/dispute link: Tentative and unconfirmed. Subject-matter adjacency to DSP003 (the Saladino dispute) and to the grievance pleaded in C044; no party, case, court or docket is named on camera, so no link is asserted.
Source removed. Quoted at 07:28 in the archived transcript.
these plagiarism copycats will start talking about things that i did years ago on my youtube channel and no one really remembers me or defends me on those videos and then they go try to sell their products or whatever products they came up with in that period of time so it's a little discouraging but um on the other hand it's kind of crazy that no one else really came up with those ideas before me you know in 2020
This is a dated public statement of the exact grievance class that later becomes the pleaded core of the Saladino chain — that other content creators take his published work, fail to attribute it, and sell products off it. research_notes.csv records for C055 that he "alleges Saladino, a fellow social-media health/diet personality, plagiarized his Carnivore Diet research without attribution and profited from it," and for C044 that he was banned from Reddit "shortly after posting YouTube videos accusing other content creators of copying and plagiarizing his work" — this video is one such YouTube statement, dated. It also sits inside the life of C100 (Saladino, MD v. Frank Tufano, S.D.N.Y.), a suit running against him: 2020-11-07 → 2022-04-13 = 522 days after that case was filed. The statement describes no filing conduct at all — no suit, no threat to sue, no count of suits, no ruling — which is why the factor is No filing-conduct factor and the tier is Moderate rather than Strong. He names nobody. No person, company, channel or handle appears in the quote or anywhere in the track. Possible case/dispute link: DSP003 (the Saladino chain) and C044 (Tufano v. Reddit, Inc.) both plead this grievance class — but the link is tentative and unconfirmed, resting on grievance type alone, because no party is named. Searched aliases.csv, research_notes.csv, lawsuits.csv (case_title and defendants) and litigation_timeline.csv; there is no name in this transcript to search with. Treat the party as unresolved, not absent.
Source removed. Quoted at 08:50 in the archived transcript.
but as a legitimate small business I am shadowbanned and censored so the corporate overlords can buy their ugly daughters some more BBL and Botox
This is the small-business-versus-platform-suppression grievance in his own words, stated on camera before any of the tracked platform suits existed. Three tracked M.D. Pa. actions filed the same day, 2024-07-08 — C042 (Tufano v. Fenix Internet, LLC, DSP005), C043 (Tufano v. TikTok Inc., DSP018) and C044 (Tufano v. Reddit, Inc., DSP017) — plead essentially this theory: C043's claims summary records that he "asserts that TikTok favors large corporate accounts over small businesses like his by internally regulating its algorithm in their favor," pleaded as Sherman Act and FTC Act violations. This Short was published 277 days before those filings (2023-10-05 → 2024-07-08, computed as a plain date difference). It describes no filing conduct whatsoever — no suit, no threat to sue, no lawyer, no court — which is why the factor is No filing-conduct factor and the tier is Moderate rather than Strong. Its value is chronological: it dates the grievance narrative well ahead of the pleading. Possible case/dispute link: Tentative and thematic only — C042 / C043 / C044 (DSP005 / DSP018 / DSP017). ⚠ No platform is named anywhere in this transcript. The actors are only "the corporate overlords". Nothing in the track says TikTok, Reddit, OnlyFans, Fenix, YouTube, Google, Instagram or any other platform. The link rests entirely on the grievance theory matching a complaint filed 277 days later, which is direction-trap 5 territory (right grievance, possibly the wrong or an untracked party). Do not promote this as naming a defendant.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:25 in the archived transcript.
Yeah, I think that's everything — I mentioned a few times, like, I wanted to launch this special product in the summer, but I spoke to a patent lawyer and there's basically nothing preventing these corporate suckers from just copying my idea and shadow banning me and censoring me and making millions and millions of dollars — well, tens, hundreds of millions of dollars off of my ideas, like they have in the past — it's happened in the past several times with the animal-based influencers, and people like Liver King — they've made tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars off of my ideas and marketing and creativity, and without even mentioning my name.
The strongest pre-filing lead found in this round of research. Published 2024-02-05 — 154 days before C044 (Tufano v. Reddit, Inc., M.D. Pa. 3:24-cv-01114, filed 2024-07-08). C044's recorded claims summary alleges "Reddit maintained the ban to shield corporate-sponsored 'fake' content creators from competition while permitting slanderous posts about him to remain online." This clip's own theory — that "corporate suckers" copy his ideas and shadow-ban and censor him, and that rival influencers profit "without even mentioning [his] name" — is a strikingly close pre-articulation of C044's core grievance theory (illegitimate competitors shielded from competition at his expense), even though the clip never names Reddit or any specific platform. He explicitly frames this as a consultation with a lawyer that concluded there was no available legal remedy ("basically nothing preventing" the conduct) at the time of this vlog, which reads as the opposite of a threatened filing.
Why this classification: Articulates the "corporate suckers copy my ideas and shadow-ban me" grievance theory that C044's Reddit complaint later pleads, 154 days before it was filed, while expressly reporting that a patent lawyer told him nothing prevented the conduct — the opposite of a threatened filing.
Source removed. Quoted at 18:28 in the archived transcript.
this is really the equivalent of just having like a protein smoothie or a protein shape this is a pretty good example of people selling snake oil and why everyone is so unhealthy CU this poor girl thinks this crap is healthy when it's actually the opposite literally the opposite you know the these shills are selling lowquality conventional crap synthetic vitamins chemicals artificial flavors and people think it's a health food
The word "shills" is C040's own keyword, transcribed correctly here. Earlier research on this channel found the captions routinely render it as "corporate shells" or "corporate chills," which hides C040's central vocabulary from any caption search; this video spells it right, twice. The substance matters more than the word. C044 (Tufano v. Reddit, Inc., M.D. Pa. 3:24-cv-01114, filed 2024-07-08, 113 days after this video) pleads that Reddit maintained his ban "to shield corporate-sponsored 'fake' content creators from competition," and C040 (filed 2024-05-22, 66 days after) pleads a conspiracy by named content creators to interfere with his business. This quote states the underlying belief — that a competing creator is a paid front for a low-quality corporate product, and that this is why the public is misled — before either complaint was filed, applied to a specific creator named by handle and a specific, named brand. It is a belief statement, not filing conduct: no filing, threatened filing, prior action, court, lawyer or case is mentioned anywhere in this video, which is why no filing-conduct factor applies and the tier is capped at Moderate.
Source removed. Quoted at 15:27 in the archived transcript.
I filed about 10 lawsuits in the past two weeks I I I mean I won't get too much into that one was you know Reddit permanently banned me I can't advertise on Reddit so I'm suing them Tik Tok Banned Me from advertising I'm suing Tik Tok
This is the one checkable count in the video and it does not check out. The case tracker records exactly one action filed in the fourteen days before publication — C045, 2024-07-26 — and five in the preceding twenty-two days (C041, C042, C043, C044 all 2024-07-08, plus C045). "About 10 lawsuits in the past two weeks" is therefore unsupported by the tracked docket by roughly an order of magnitude. Three readings are possible and none is adopted here: (a) filings in courts the tracker does not cover (state small-claims, county civil) that were never captured; (b) "filed" used loosely for lawsuits written rather than docketed, which his own phrasing earlier in the video ("writing up lawsuits") supports; (c) plain overstatement. The settling check would be a docket sweep of Lackawanna County and any small-claims/magisterial court for 2024-07-16 → 2024-07-30. Recorded because earlier research on this channel found a different self-reported count ("at least 10 active legal cases") that was accurate to within one — so the pattern is not "he always inflates," and the divergence between the two counts is itself the finding.
Source removed. Quoted at 06:21 in the archived transcript.
lately over the past few weeks on Reddit people have become aware of how horrifically he botched me and it was really deterring people from cons ING with him so they decided to get this guy who had surgery with him do a bunch of fake up votes on it which you know he has okay results and then they put a bunch of like really positive fake comments at the top of the post
The load-bearing quote of the video. It names Reddit — Reddit, Inc. is a tracked defendant and the subject of its own dispute group, the Reddit litigation — and alleges vote and comment manipulation on a Reddit post about him, orchestrated by "they." This is the platform-manipulation theory stated on a dated record seven months before the 2025 Reddit filings, and it connects the Reddit litigation and the Taban eye-surgery dispute in a single sentence. The antecedent of "they" is never stated — it is not said to be Taban, his staff, his counsel or Reddit itself, and it must not be resolved by assumption. No filing conduct is described.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:21 in the archived transcript.
What a surprise. The anonymous gangstalking Redditors are trying to get me deplatformed again, telling you to report my posts after this forwarding company let $20,000 of my Wagu beef rot in the shipping container. These people are defending the shipping company.
A single sentence that sits across two tracked disputes — the Reddit litigation and the All-Ways wagyu-shipment dispute — and states the causal link he draws between them: that the platform reporting is a response to his complaints about the forwarder. Reddit, Inc. is a tracked defendant. The word "again" is doing real work: C044 (Tufano v. Reddit, Inc., M.D. Pa. 3:24-cv-01114) had been dismissed 2024-12-11, with the final order expressly deeming any appeal frivolous and not taken in good faith, and the Third Circuit appeal (25-1014) was dismissed 2025-03-21 — so at this date the Reddit grievance was already once-litigated and lost. C020 and C056 were then both filed on 2025-08-13, 24 days after this video.
Source removed.
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. Reddit, Inc. (3:24-cv-01114)". Research last verified October 3, 2026. https://suedbyfranktufano.com/cases/3-24-cv-01114-tufano-v-reddit-inc/