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

Duck and Quail Eggs BACK! Fresh Meat and Blood! Organic Cereal!? · April 1, 2024

uh you know I've constantly been dealing with chargebacks and harassment uh as as a legitimate small business uh this week was um was a lot of like chargebacks on the foods website and and to explain that briefly you know people order $300 worth of stuff they receive it and then they file a charge back and the bank sides with them so you know it's hard uh it's hard how everything from the payment provider to the website host to the banks they all you know they just push the cost of the small business and then at the end of the day I'm the one that I guess the short end of the stick but uh it just means like you know if one person does that you know like the amount of orders I have to do to make up for that stolen money is is insane it's just it's insane

The clearest pre-filing articulation of the Shopify / business-platform dispute's structure in this stretch of the record. C040 (Tufano v. Frankies Free Range Meat Conspirators, M.D. Pa. 3:24-cv-00846, filed 2024-05-22 — 51 days after this video) pleads that Shopify (USA) Inc. and more than a hundred other named defendants conspired to interfere with his internet business under 18 U.S.C. § 241. Here, 51 days earlier, he names the same architecture by role rather than by name: "the payment provider… the website host… the banks" — that is, the chargeback processor, Shopify's function, and the issuing banks — as a chain that collectively "pushes the cost" onto him. He describes no filing, no threatened filing and no lawyer; the factor records that absence. "Stolen money" is his characterisation, not a court's.

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

Cavity Concentrate! Water Kefir! Demi Glace! Free Range Meat Vlog · April 22, 2024

I'm not going to talk about the chargebacks and scams this week but it's it's tough you know it's like a few people were like saying uh I maybe I'll talk about that next week because it's always like firsttime customers and they're doing sketchy stuff like when I tell them to take photos of the entire order immediately and then the packing s they say oh I already threw it out or I don't have it so it's just you know trying to filter through the nonsense but it hasn't been that bad

C013's claims summary describes the grievance C040 was built on as "138 chargebacks over the life of the business," with banks siding with customers he characterises as fraudulent. This quote states that grievance — first-time customers, "sketchy stuff," a photo-and-packing-slip evidence protocol he has already put in place — 30 days before C040 was filed, and does so while explicitly declining to discuss it. It also confirms chargebacks are a standing segment of the vlog, which 4nRZcoGscmk (2024-05-20) corroborates from the other side ("you guys want to hear about me complaining about chargebacks and stuff", plus the uploader's own Chargeback? chapter title). No filing, court, lawyer or intention to sue is mentioned anywhere in this video.

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

LA Restaurant Vlog #2 - Avra Beverly Hills · May 12, 2024

when like I don't really like for me $200 bro like I lose so much money on my business doesn't make any sense like how can you lose so much money on your business every week from people just filing chargebacks that you could eat a restaurants a few nights a week and not [ __ ] worry about it cuz like oh what's another $500 I lose

The Shopify-dispute chargeback grievance stated in his own words before the action that pleads it existed. C040 (Tufano v. Frankies Free Range Meat Conspirators, M.D. Pa. 3:24-cv-00846) was filed 2024-05-22 — 10 days after this video published and, given the documented lag between this video's recording and its publication, at least 27 days after it was recorded. C040's recorded claims summary alleges that ~130 named individuals, "apparently Shopify merchants, employees, or customers," are liable to him for $1,000,000 "based on chargebacks connected to his 'Frankie's Free Range Meats' online meat-delivery business." The quote supplies the grievance, the mechanism and a running dollar figure, with no case, court, filing or lawyer mentioned anywhere in 48 minutes. Because the word "filing" appears in the quote, the classification needs saying plainly: the filing described is customers filing chargebacks with their banks, not anyone filing a lawsuit — he describes no filing of his own, no threatened filing and no prior action, so treating this as a filing announcement would be a straightforward misreading. "What's another $500 I lose" is also a fifth irreconcilable chargeback figure, joining the four already on record across three other videos ($650 / $700 / $2,000 / "3 or $4,000"); it is recorded alongside them and reconciled with none of them. Note also that the loss period here is "every week," which not every one of those four attaches to.

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

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

The big hitter was Joe Finelli stealing over $62 in [city and state redacted — §5]. So, guess where I'm going this weekend. We're going to call the local police department and get you some misdemeanor theft charges on your record. Maybe you'll learn a lesson.

The clearest duty-of-care item in this slice. A private individual is named in full, located, accused of theft, addressed directly in the second person ("get you some misdemeanor theft charges on your record"), and told the speaker is coming to their area this weekend. It is recorded because it is a fact about how the chargeback dispute was conducted off the docket, alongside the parallel filings announced 27 seconds later — not because any allegation in it is established. No source is offered beyond his own account, and the named person appears nowhere in the dataset. No filing conduct is described in this passage (calling a police department is not a filing), so No filing-conduct factor is correct.

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

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

Courtney for $382 and Andy for $350. Here is the package on Courtney's doorstep. Here is the package on Andy's doorstep. And I don't understand how I'm not allowed to press criminal charges against these people when they're literally stealing product from me.

This is the raw material of the chargeback theory pleaded in C040, C054 and C072, shown at the level of individual customers: two people named, dollar amounts attached, delivery photographs displayed, and the conduct characterised as criminal theft. It matters to the research because the ~140-defendant Shopify complaints are built from exactly this kind of record — and because the same practice is described from the other end in G9GIlNcbp0M (2025-06-11), where he says the filing will let him "list and name all the defendants ... publicly." No filing conduct is described in these sentences, hence No filing-conduct factor.

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 is SCAMMING! · June 8, 2026

If you're using Shopify as a small business, please immediately check your payouts and make sure they are not scamming you on their transaction fee percentage.

The 2026-06-08 videos are not about the 06-07 misclick at all — this is a distinct allegation that Shopify charges more than its advertised transaction-fee rate. Unlike the four 06-07 videos (an operational mishap he attributes to his own click), this is a claim against the company's conduct, of the kind that could underpin a contract or consumer claim. It is also the only claim in the burst stated with a method of proof (see next quote).

Why this classification: Advises other merchants to audit their payouts against the advertised transaction-fee rate.

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