By order of August 11, 2026 the court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in its entirety and dismissed the amended complaint, directing the Clerk to close the case. The order records that dismissal was recommended for failure to prosecute and otherwise comply with the court’s orders: his in forma pauperis status had been revoked on May 22, 2026, the filing fee was not paid thereafter, an order to show cause issued on March 10, 2026 drew no response, and no timely objections to the report and recommendation were filed, which the order states resulted in the forfeiture of de novo review. The order records that the revocation rested in part on his having filed numerous other actions in the same court in which he did pay the filing fee. The order does not state whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice.
August 11, 2026 ruling source — govinfo.gov ↗Tufano v. Shopify (USA) Inc. et al
3:25-cv-00316 · U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania
About this case
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 fraud against Shopify (USA) Inc. and other corporate defendants. He alleges an attorney from the law firm Lewis & Lin LLC obtained a court order to seek information about his online business from Shopify, and that Shopify's disclosure of information about his business's financial status “resulted in a court judgment for an unreasonable amount of money” against him. The reviewing court noted the amended complaint “suffers from multiple pleading deficiencies” and that the precise nature of the allegations was “difficult to discern.”
Defendants
- All Operating Corporations and LLC's for Shopify
- Lewis & Lin LLC Lawyer profile
- Shopify (USA) Inc.
Source record
This page separates court/ruling records, party filings, research classifications, secondary sources and public statements. Unknown or unresolved fields remain labelled as such.
Outcome and research status
Outcome reason: The court (Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr.) adopted the magistrate's Report & Recommendation and dismissed the amended complaint (Doc. 8); the Clerk of Court was directed to close the case. Update 2026-10-11: the order was read in full. Dismissal was recommended for failure to prosecute and otherwise comply with the court’s orders. His in forma pauperis status had been revoked on May 22, 2026 and the filing fee was not paid thereafter; an order to show cause issued March 10, 2026 drew no response; and no timely objections to the report and recommendation were filed, which the order states resulted in the forfeiture of de novo review. The order records that the revocation rested in part on his having filed numerous other actions in the same court in which he did pay that fee. The order does not state whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice.
Research status: Source-backed (the Aug. 11, 2026 order read in full via GovInfo). The underlying report and recommendation is an image-only scan and was not read.
Research notes: Docket snapshot only (order text read from the docket entry description, not the underlying PDF) -- confirmed on the first successful PacerMonitor access after the 2026-08-15 pass's block.
Related litigation
- Dispute group: Shopify / business-platform conspiracy litigation
Court & ruling records
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.
Filing-restriction indicators
Strength labels are research classifications, not judicial declarations that the litigant is vexatious.
The order of August 11, 2026 dismissed the amended complaint for failure to prosecute and to comply with the court’s orders, after in forma pauperis status was revoked on May 22, 2026 and the filing fee went unpaid. The order records that the revocation rested in part on his having filed numerous other actions in the same court in which he did pay the fee. Recorded as a court finding because the order was read in full; it is not a vexatious-litigant determination.
Source — govinfo.gov ↗Chronology events
Sequence does not by itself prove motive or causation.
Tufano filed federal complaint C047 against Shopify (USA) Inc., Lewis & Lin LLC, and "All Operating Corporations and LLC's for Shopify."
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Tufano filed a parallel New York state complaint, C095, against Shopify Inc., Shopify (USA) Inc., and Lewis & Lin LLC, three days after filing the federal C047.
Source — iapps.courts.state.ny.us ↗Tufano filed a third Shopify-related federal complaint, C050, against Shopify (USA) Inc. Corporation Service Company and numerous named individuals, while C047 remained pending.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗In the federal Shopify action the court revoked his in forma pauperis status. The later dismissal order records that the revocation rested in part on his having filed numerous other actions in the same court in which he did pay the filing fee.
Source — govinfo.gov ↗The court adopted the magistrate's R&R and dismissed C047's amended complaint; the Clerk was directed to close the case. The docket entry description read for this confirmation did not specify with/without prejudice.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗The court adopted the report and recommendation and dismissed the amended complaint for failure to prosecute and otherwise comply with its orders, the filing fee having gone unpaid after the revocation and an order to show cause of March 10, 2026 having drawn no response. No timely objections were filed, which the order states forfeited de novo review.
Source — govinfo.gov ↗Public video statements
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.
[his own words] "So, uh, the plaintiff's lawyer, David Lynn, Esquire, I filed multiple lawsuits against him and Shopify to no avail. I filed a motion to quash, you know, these secret society degenerates, Freemason, Illuminati, and whoever whatever group they're a part of. They're just working against me."
He names the opposing attorney and the platform, states he filed multiple actions against them, and reports the outcome as “no avail”. The dispute is identified and the cases are identifiable: C047 (M.D. Pa. 3:25-cv-00316, 2025-02-21) and C095 (NY Sup. Ct. 651064/2025, 2025-02-24), both in the Shopify / business-platform conspiracy litigation. The case tracker's refiling note for C095 reads: “The same single fraud claim against Shopify and Lewis & Lin LLC over the same misused court order, filed three days after C047 in a second forum. Concurrent duplicate.” His own words describe exactly that conduct. The subpoena grievance those cases plead is also narrated at [11:16]–[13:18] of this video. A more conservative reading would classify this as Moderate (Filing announced or confirmed; Self-reported filing volume), since he says “multiple lawsuits” without expressly saying the second repeats the first, making “repeat filing on the same dispute” an inference from the docket rather than from his sentence. The Strong classification rests on the grievance (the motion to quash, the misused court order) being stated in the same breath and being singular, and on the fact that both readings agree on what the conduct was.
Source removed. Quoted at 15:49 in the archived transcript. Play at 3:20 in this project’s compilation ↗
So, at some point, maybe I'm going to have to get off Shopify and sue Shopify. I don't know. I've already sued these people. I have lawsuits filed against Shopify. What am I going to file lawsuits against the credit card companies?
In twelve seconds he says he may sue Shopify, that he has already sued them, and that he has lawsuits (plural) filed against them — then floats extending the same grievance to a new class of defendant. That is repeat filing on the same dispute in the speaker’s own words, against a named, tracked defendant on a tracked dispute (the Shopify / business-platform litigation). The tracked record agrees with the plural: as of 2025-05-26, C040 (filed 2024-05-22), C047 (filed 2025-02-21) and C095 (NY Supreme, filed 2025-02-24) had all been filed, and C050 and C054 follow within six weeks. One documented ambiguity on this channel: “Shopify” has elsewhere been named as a subpoena recipient (in C100) rather than as a defendant, which argues against tying casual mentions to the Shopify dispute group — but that caution does not apply here, because “sue Shopify” and “lawsuits filed against Shopify” are unambiguous. A more conservative reading would hold that the passage announces no new filing — the “maybe I’m going to have to… sue Shopify” is hedged, and the rest is retrospective — and classify it Moderate under self-reported filing volume. The Strong classification stands because “I’ve already sued these people… I have lawsuits filed against Shopify” is itself a statement of repeat filing on one dispute, not merely of volume.
Source removed. Quoted at 04:36 in the archived transcript. Play at 4:11 in this project’s compilation ↗
I have multiple lawsuits filed in the state and federal court, which they don't seem to care about either.
He names a tracked defendant and, in the same breath, states that he has more than one action on file against it, in both state and federal court, over the same chargeback grievance — the conduct the Strong rubric describes. It is also independently checkable and it checks out: as of this upload date (2025-07-16) the case tracker holds five Shopify actions, two state and three federal — C095 (New York State Supreme, 651064/2025, filed 2025-02-24), C013 (Lackawanna 2025-04276, filed 2025-06-06), C047 (M.D. Pa. 3:25-cv-00316, filed 2025-02-21), C050 (M.D. Pa. 3:25-cv-00975, filed 2025-06-02) and C054 (M.D. Pa. 3:25-cv-01227, filed 2025-07-07, nine days before this video). The tracker separately records Strong refiling evidence for C054 and C072 on this same grievance. The classification is a research classification recording what the speaker said; it is not a judicial finding and not a vexatious-litigant determination.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:30 in the archived transcript. Play at 10:50 in this project’s compilation ↗
Do not use Shopify. They will steal money from you. I've filed multiple lawsuits against them. The judge just throws them out.
In one sentence he states, of a single named opponent, that he has filed multiple suits ("I've filed multiple lawsuits against them") and that those suits were dismissed ("The judge just throws them out"). That is the repeat-filing-on-one-dispute core factor stated by the litigant himself, plus a self-reported volume claim and an adverse-outcome description, about a party named in the transcript rather than only in the title or the location tag. Strong test re-applied on the corrected wording: a core factor is present (Repeat filing on the same dispute) and an identified dispute is present (DSP002, named in the speaker's own words), so the tier holds. The corrected en-orig wording is materially the same claim as the superseded translated rendering ("I filed many lawsuits against them. The judge simply dismisses them") — plural filings, same defendant, dismissals — so the Strong classification survives the retranslation unchanged.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:23 in the archived transcript. Play at 21:55 in this project’s compilation ↗
We've filed multiple lawsuits against Shopify. We've contacted the police department multiple times. The most recent lawsuit we just did, we're suing the police department. We're suing all the banks. Hopefully hopefully naming every single bank kind of puts an end to this and they keep an eye out for it now.
The speaker states in his own words that he has filed more than one action against Shopify on the same chargeback grievance, and then describes the most recent one by its party composition — the police department plus "all the banks." The dataset holds six Shopify actions (C013/C054, C047, C050, C072, C095) on the chargeback/reviews theory, and C083's amended complaint of 2026-08-24 names Carbondale Police Department, Shopify and seven banks. The identification is from the party composition described in the transcript, not from the title.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:15 in the archived transcript. Play at 22:54 in this project’s compilation ↗
at this point I've lost tens of thousands of dollars from Shopify scamming me as a payment provider
A dated, on-camera statement of the exact grievance — money lost through Shopify acting as his payment processor — made before any Shopify-defendant case in the tracker was filed. It states the injury and quantifies it, but describes no filing, no court and no proceeding. (Tier: Moderate — No filing-conduct factor)
Source removed.
so whether I need to file more lawsuits U maybe switch over to the state courts sue the banks Sue Shopify I don't know I mean if it takes me till I'm 110 years old I will get my money back
Three of the four elements are checkable and check out. “Switch over to the state courts” and “Sue Shopify”: C047 (M.D. Pa. 3:25-cv-00316, Shopify (USA) Inc. + Lewis & Lin LLC) filed 2025-02-21, 44 days later, and C095 (NY Sup. Ct. 651064/2025, Shopify Inc. + Shopify (USA) + Lewis & Lin) filed 2025-02-24, 47 days later — a federal action followed three days later by a state one. “Sue the banks”: no bank action over chargebacks appears in the case tracker; the Fidelity Bank mortgage and flood-insurance dispute is a different thing and must not be attached here. Recorded as a temporal fact, not a causal claim.
Source removed. Quoted at 04:19 in the archived transcript.
and after seeing this nonsense I immediately filed two new court cases against the opposing Council for this fraudulent activity and then I showed proof the LC in the court order is not even active
A self-reported count of new filings, made against counsel for the party holding a judgment against him. C047, Tufano v. Shopify (USA) Inc. et al, M.D. Pa. 3:25-cv-00316, whose defendants include Lewis & Lin LLC, was filed 2025-02-21 — the same calendar day this video published. See the note in the research notes archived for this video: the "two" is not cleanly satisfiable on that date and should not be treated as resolved. (Tier: Moderate — Filing announced or confirmed; Self-reported filing volume)
Why this classification: He states on camera that he "immediately filed two new court cases against the opposing Council," a self-reported count published the same day C047 was filed against Lewis & Lin LLC, but the archive records that the second of the "two" is unresolved on that date, so it is recorded as an announced filing and a volume claim only.
Source removed. Quoted at 01:13 in the archived transcript.
these clowns at Shopify legal team that are monitoring this they're not even reading my emails or verifying the correct information I could just send random court orders to people's Shopify stores and steal their money
The generalised version of the grievance both Shopify actions were pleaded on — that a platform honoured a court order without checking whether it named the right entity. (Tier: Moderate — No filing-conduct factor)
Source removed. Quoted at 01:27 in the archived transcript.
yet Shopify is obeying the court order this is like me winning a case against Yahoo and then trying to collect against Google it's complete fraud it's illegitimate
This is the substance of the wrong recorded for two tracked actions. The case tracker's refiling note for C047 describes that case as "targeting the Lewis & Lin court order used to obtain his business records," and C095's as "the same single fraud claim against Shopify and Lewis & Lin LLC over the same misused court order." The statement predates neither — it sits one day after C047 was filed.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:30 in the archived transcript.
I've already filed a federal lawsuit against the lawyer that did this as well as Shopify and I filed an emergency motion to stay and quash everything going on
C047, Tufano v. Shopify (USA) Inc. et al, M.D. Pa. 3:25-cv-00316, was filed 2025-02-21 — the day before this video published — and its defendants are exactly All Operating Corporations and LLC's for Shopify; Lewis & Lin LLC; Shopify (USA) Inc., i.e. "the lawyer that did this as well as Shopify." That is about as tight as a publish-date adjacency gets, and it is stated as a fact about upload timing. (Tier: Moderate — Filing announced or confirmed)
Why this classification: Moderate because he confirms a federal action against 'the lawyer that did this as well as Shopify' one day after the matching docket shows it filed, yet frames it as a response to a fraudulent order rather than to any adverse ruling.
Source removed. Quoted at 01:12 in the archived transcript.
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."
Source removed.
There are multiple grounds on which this lawsuit should have already been dismissed. The lawyer for the plaintiff committed perjury because he said that he served the default judgment against me, which is them trying to steal money from me… He also committed fraud when he used subpoenas to obtain documents from other companies and then link them to me.
The strongest passage among those researched from this video, because the second half is independently corroborated in the case tracker. The subpoena grievance — that opposing counsel used a court order to pull his business records from third parties — is the pleaded wrong of C047 (Tufano v. Shopify (USA) Inc. et al, filed 2025-02-21), whose recorded refiling basis reads "targeting the Lewis & Lin court order used to obtain his business records", and of C095 (filed 2025-02-24), "the same single fraud claim against Shopify and Lewis & Lin LLC over the same misused court order." Lewis & Lin LLC and David D. Lin Esq are both tracked parties. The "default judgment" half matches C100's default judgment and injunction of 2025-01-30. So this passage joins the C100 default judgment to the Shopify-dispute subpoena litigation in the speaker's own words, on a dated record, six months after both. It describes no new filing — the C047/C095 actions were already on file — so no filing-conduct factor is coded. Tier: Moderate (Adverse outcome described)
Source removed. Quoted at 01:32 in the archived transcript.
If you have a legal issue, the court doesn't have to go to you. The court can go to Shopify and Shopify can give up all your information. So, you're not protected. If you're on WordPress and you have a legal issue, you're protected because they can't go to WordPress and say, "Hey, give us his financial." No, they can't.
Describes, as advice to viewers, a court obtaining a merchant's records from the platform rather than from the merchant. A tracked action is recorded as targeting a court order used to obtain his business records, and this passage describes that mechanism in ordinary language.
Why this classification: The mechanism matches a tracked pleading closely, but he states it generically as advice and never says a court did this to him, so the archive considered and rejected treating it as a first-person account of that order; no case, court, order or firm is named.
Source removed. Quoted at 01:52 in the archived transcript.
And when I filed the lawsuit in the court, the judges threw it out. They don't care. When I had the local police department and sent them documents, they didn't care. You know, no one's going to prosecute Shopify.
The most consequential Shopify statement located in this effort. On 2026-06-08 he states two grievances in one breath: the courts dismissed his Shopify case, and the local police department would not act on documents he submitted about Shopify. On 2026-07-29 — 51 days later — C083 (Tufano v. Carbondale Police Department et al, M.D. Pa.
Why this classification: Reports his filed suit was thrown out and the police took no action, concluding no one will prosecute the platform. No further filing is stated, which is why this is not tiered Strong.
Source removed. Quoted at 02:26 in the archived transcript.
Glad to see that Shopify is using all that money they stole from small business owners to advertise to other potential small business owners so that they can continue to steal from them. Pretty lucrative business, huh, being a bunch of thieves? And Shopify will tell you that they're taking a certain percentage of your sales, but it will be higher when you actually put it into QuickBooks or Excel or have your accountant audit them.
States the underlying grievance against a tracked defendant in his own words, with an unusually specific mechanism — that Shopify's disclosed percentage of sales understates what it actually takes, detectable by reconciling against QuickBooks/Excel or by having "your accountant audit them." No filing, court, judge or case is mentioned in this passage, so it carries no filing-conduct factor.
Source removed.
Related video research
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.
- I SUED THE POLICE to Expose Chargeback Thieves!!!Source removed
- Shopify will STEAL FROM YOU!!!Source removed
- Be careful of SHOPIFY!!! They are THIEVES!!!Source removed
- 7 Years on Shopify FOR NOTHING!!!Source removed
- Shopify OWNS YOU!!!Source removed
- Shopify is EVIL and “Owns” your Store!!!Source removed
- Shopify THIEVESSource removed
- Shopify is SCAMMING!Source removed
- Shopify Stupidity RUINED BUSINESS?!Source removed
- One Click on Shopify will END YOUR BUSINESSSource removed
- Accidentally Canceled Orders - SHOPIFY SUCKSSource removed
- I think Shopify JUST ENDED MY BUSINESSSource removed
- DO NOT USE SHOPIFY!!!Source removed
- Courts are for the “Elite” TO DESTROY YOU!Source removed
- Shopify continues to STEAL MONEY!!!Source removed
- GANGSTALKERS Steal $2,000 per week in CHARGEBACKS!Source removed
- Illuminati Agent uses Corrupt Freemason Judge to RUIN MY LIFESource removed
- SHOPIFY SHILL Conspiring against Me!?Source removed
- GANGSTALKERS COMING AFTER MY BUSINESS!? Insider at Shopify?Source removed
- Federal Judges Defend GANGSTALKERS in Court!Source removed
- SHOPIFY commits Credit Card FRAUDSource removed
Cite this page
Frank Tufano Litigation Research. "Tufano v. Shopify (USA) Inc. et al (3:25-cv-00316)". Research last verified October 11, 2026. https://suedbyfranktufano.com/cases/3-25-cv-00316-tufano-v-shopify-usa-inc-et-al/