Tufano v. SHOPIFY (USA) Inc. Corporation Service Company et al

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

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

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

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

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

guy Bradley orders freaking let me just make sure it's the right guy before I start trash talk him yes it is this is hilarious to me this guy Bradley orders 20 lamb fat and

Among the strongest finds in this research. He reads a chargeback notification off his screen, checks he has the right person ("let me just make sure it's the right guy before I start trash talk him"), and names him twice as Bradley, on a 20 lb lamb-fat order. The tracked party-name record holds a Bradley Brown, a named defendant in C040 (66 defendants, filed 2024-05-22), C050 (142 defendants) and C054 (144 defendants) — the chargeback-conspiracy filings of the Shopify / business-platform dispute, whose pleaded theory is precisely "chargebacks connected to his 'Frankie's Free Range Meats' online meat-delivery business" by named customers. So a person he identifies on camera as a chargeback filer in December 2023 shares a first name with someone he sued for chargebacks 162 days later. This is a lead, not an identification, and must not harden into one: only a first name is spoken, Brown is never said, and Bradley Brown is simply the only Bradley and the only Brown among the tracked party names — which makes the match suggestive but does not make it a match. The check that would settle it is the C040 complaint's own defendant list against the order record.

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

ANOTHER EYE SURGERY!? Plus Crazy Cab Story · March 22, 2024

the worst charge back ever dude 900 I as soon as I got out of the [ __ ] surgery room into the into the taxi saw my emails [ __ ] $900 chargeback [ __ ] bank sided with the customer dude I'm about to some [ __ ] [ __ ] in in like [REDACTED: a named Manhattan neighbourhood — §5] his name is Justin I'm I I swear to [ __ ] God I will get my $900 back I swear to [ __ ]

This is the chargebacks-as-grievance theory that C040 (Tufano v. Frankies Free Range Meat Conspirators, M.D. Pa., filed 2024-05-22 — 61 days after this video) and its refiling C050 plead, stated here as a single live incident with a figure, a payment outcome ("bank sided with the customer"), a first name and an implied threat of physical retaliation. Chargebacks are heavily tracked across this research: 110 researched statements, seven claims-summary records and four tracked cases mention them. No filing is described, threatened or contemplated here — the announced remedy is self-help, not a suit — so the factor is No filing-conduct factor, not Threatened or prospective filing.

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

$850 CHARGEBACK!? \"They\" keep harassing me! Beef Blood! Cookie Dough Ice Cream! · March 25, 2024

and hey look all you guys that file chargebacks Google your name in about 2 months and you'll see the lawsuit so then when an employer or job prospect or or whatever when someone Googles your name they're going to see you in a lawsuit that you stole money from me so hey no no one's no one's reached out to me to to make uh remediations and give me my money back so that's what we're going to have to do we'll sue the people first that file the chargebacks if not we'll sue the Banks I Don't Really Care

the load-bearing quote in this video. It announces, on 2024-03-25, a not-yet-filed suit against the people who filed chargebacks, with a named escalation path (customers first, then the banks). C040 — Tufano v. Frankies Free Range Meat Conspirators, M.D. Pa. 3:24-cv-00846 — was filed 2024-05-22, 58 days later, naming 66 individuals; its research_notes claims summary describes exactly this theory (Shopify plus "more than one hundred other named defendants conspired to… interfere with his internet-based business", pled under 18 U.S.C. § 241). His own estimate — "in about 2 months" — is accurate to within about a week, which is unusual on this channel and is itself the reason the adjacency is worth recording rather than a coincidence of subject matter. Cost imposition as stated motive was considered and is deliberately NOT applied. The stated point of the filing here is reputational exposure ("when someone Googles your name they're going to see you in a lawsuit"), not the opponent's legal spend. The factor's published definition turns on legal spend, and the skill's leafleting rule is explicit that the factor follows the stated motive, not the tactic. Recording that decision so a later pass does not silently upgrade it. Strong was considered and declined: Threatened or prospective filing is not one of the three core factors, and no case or dispute is named on camera. Moderate is the ceiling the published rubric allows, however good the adjacency is.

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

$850 CHARGEBACK!? \"They\" keep harassing me! Beef Blood! Cookie Dough Ice Cream! · March 25, 2024

it's too much money they're not the the these Elite corporations are H they're not technically lead corporations I I can't name who they are but basically people are being hired to maliciously Place orders on my business uh let me word that better place orders fortunately on my business with malicious intent to file chargebacks

this is the substantive theory of C040 and C050 — that the chargebacks are not independent consumer disputes but a paid, coordinated campaign — stated 58 days before C040 was filed and 1,165 days before C050. It also records that he declines to name the alleged principals on camera ("I can't name who they are"), which is a fact about the pre-filing record rather than an allegation. The captioned sentence "these Elite corporations are H they're not technically lead corporations" contradicts itself and is flagged rather than corrected; a reading of "they're not technically [E]lite corporations" is plausible but is a hypothesis, not a fact.

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

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

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

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

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

Fresh Meat! Garlic Herb Butter! Wagyu Picanha! AIR FILTER GIVEAWAY!? Free Range Meat Vlog · August 12, 2024

yeah so we're still dealing with a lot of the the negative harassment and chargebacks and you know the elite corporate shills that are being hired to try to discredit my business I don't I don't want to focus on that too much today but I will say if you guys can please just leave a five starie on Google or leave some positive reviews to try to flush out these negative reviews because these people are literally just completely lying and and trying to slander and destroy my business it's it's completely malicious there's no legitimacy zero legitimacy to anything these people are saying

This is the pleaded theory of C040/C050, in the plaintiff's own words, while C040 was live. The claims summary recorded for C050 describes the theory as "the same chargebacks/negative-reviews-as-conspiracy theory Tufano pursued unsuccessfully in an earlier suit, Tufano v. Frankies Free Range Meat Conspirators, No. 3:24-cv-846 (M.D. Pa.)" — i.e. C040, filed 2024-05-22 and still pending on this publish date (dismissed 2024-12-09). The quote assembles all three of that theory's elements — chargebacks, coordinated negative reviews, and paid actors ("elite corporate shills … being hired") acting on behalf of competitors — and adds the motive C050 pleads: "these other people are in it for the money and they're not happy about the competition." This is not a pre-filing statement; it is a mid-litigation one. The distinction matters: the silent pre-filing pattern and the announced-and-fulfilled pattern this research documents elsewhere are both about statements that precede a filing, and this is neither. It is a third shape — the theory of a pending action narrated to an audience without the action being mentioned.

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

Affirm colludes with Shopify to STEAL MONEY · January 5, 2025

I do not have a firm installed as a third party app people are using it to take like a loan and Order meat from me and then they're filing fraudulent chargebacks and a firm just holds the money and steals it from the store so a firm is working with Shopify to defraud small business owners of money

This is the clearest statement of the underlying grievance in the Shopify / business-platform group — that customers order meat, file chargebacks, and the payment platform retains the money. It names Shopify and asserts collusion. It describes harm, not filing conduct. (Tier: Moderate — No filing-conduct factor)

Why this classification: States the Shopify / business-platform grievance in full — customers ordering meat, filing chargebacks, and the payment platform retaining the money — and names Shopify, a tracked defendant, but describes commercial harm rather than any filing of his own.

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

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

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

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

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

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

And it's crazy that Shopify allows this. And all of these platforms and really the banking system and everything is set up to harass small business in favor of these people. these big corporate entities, billion-dollar companies, will hire these people to place chargebacks every week on small businesses.

This is the pleaded theory, not a paraphrase of it. The dispute group is recorded as "Shopify / business-platform conspiracy litigation"; the C050 claims summary calls it "the same chargebacks/negative-reviews-as-conspiracy theory Tufano pursued unsuccessfully in … Tufano v. Frankies Free Range Meat Conspirators, No. 3:24-cv-846 (M.D. Pa.)" — i.e. C040, dismissed 2024-12-09. Two elements are worth separating: (a) Shopify's permitting the chargebacks, which is the breach-of-contract / merchant-agreement strand (C072, C013); and (b) large companies hiring people to file them, which is the 18 U.S.C. §241 conspiracy strand (C040, C050, C054). Both are here in twenty seconds. The video offers no source for the hiring allegation and this research takes no position on whether it is true.

Why this classification: He states, in his own words and fifteen days before C050 was filed, the chargebacks-as-paid-conspiracy theory that the Shopify / business-platform complaints plead, naming Shopify but no case, court or filing conduct.

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

GANGSTALKERS Steal $2,000 per week in CHARGEBACKS! · May 26, 2025

And I actually just filmed a whole 15 minutes of me reading these people's names, their addresses, where they live, and the amount of money they stole from me. But that's not actually legal until I publish this into a court case. So, we did file a court case in the federal district court with the first 70 people. This here is a new list that I have to publish a court case. So, what I'm going to do is I'm going to publish another court case this week or next week, and I will happily read every single one of your names, your addresses, the amount of money you stolen from me, and provide a FedEx tracking number so these people can see the package in front of your doorstep. Um, I was going to post a video of doing that today, but I think the the video would get taken down for doxing. Um, I could do that with that first court case, but I don't have that list in front of me now. And I'd like to do it to everyone at once.

This is the load-bearing passage of the slice. It establishes, in his own words and on a fixed date: 1. A filing already made — "we did file a court case in the federal district court with the first 70 people." 2. A filing announced but not yet made — "I'm going to publish another court case this week or next week." 3. The stated legal theory linking the two to publication — "that's not actually legal until I publish this into a court case", i.e. he understands the filing as what licenses the disclosure. 4. That the disclosure video was filmed (~15 min) and withheld from this upload, with the reason given as takedown risk for doxing.

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

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

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

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

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

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

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

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

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

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

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

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

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

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

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

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

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

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

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

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

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

Shopify Chargebacks ARE CRIMINAL not Civil · July 22, 2025

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

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

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

Shopify Chargebacks ARE CRIMINAL not Civil · July 22, 2025

I'm going to get together a list of every single person who has committed misdemeanor theft in me, take it to my local police department, and hopefully they handle it.

A stated intention to assemble a list of named individuals and hand it to police. The parallel to the civil pleadings is exact in form — C050 and C054 each name more than 130 individuals — but a police report is not a court filing, so no filing-conduct factor in the closed vocabulary applies, and Threatened or prospective filing would be a mis-classification. Recorded because the referral, if made, would be a second forum brought to bear on the same set of people already sued. Tier: Moderate (No filing-conduct factor)

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

Gangstalkers try to frame you as “Crazy” after ruining your life · September 2, 2025

And then these people stealing money from me and filing chargebacks and thousands thousands of dollars like saying I'm schizophrenic.

This is a plain-language statement of the grievance the case tracker records as the "chargeback conspiracy" theory — the pleading behind C050 and C054 (Tufano v. SHOPIFY (USA) Inc. Corporation Service Company et al, M.D. Pa., filed 2025-06-02 and 2025-07-07), whose defendant lists run to scores of named individual customers. Hearing the speaker describe the same alleged conduct in ordinary language, roughly two months after those complaints were filed, is chronology-relevant. It reports the alleged conduct of others, not any filing behaviour of his own, so no filing-conduct factor applies and it cannot reach Strong.

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

Shopify THIEVES · June 8, 2026

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.

Transcript-verified verbatim quote