Source-linked public-record research into lawsuits, outcomes, related proceedings, court rulings, public statements and litigation chronology.
3:25-cv-01574 · 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, originally filing in Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas before removal to federal court, sues Google LLC, Dr. Mehryar Ray Taban, and Taban's medical practice (MTMD), alleging that he used Google's search engine to identify Taban as a healthcare provider, that Taban “botched” a medical procedure in 2023 causing him injury, and that Google and Taban then conspired to defeat his efforts to post negative reviews of the doctor on Google's platform. The complaint “recites numerous claims against both Google and the doctor” in support of a demand for more than $484,000,000 in damages.
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: Remaining action transferred to the Northern District of California; Taban defendants had been dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction and RealSelf dismissed without prejudice for failure to timely serve. Update 2026-08-15: The N.D. Cal. docket (3:25-cv-10825) continued for seven more months after the Dec. 15, 2025 transfer. On May 6, 2026, Judge Rita F. Lin granted Google/Alphabet's renewed motion to dismiss with leave to amend (order read in full). Tufano filed an amended complaint June 5, 2026. Two Ninth Circuit mandates issued June 22, 2026 resolved his two premature appeals of the case. Further docket entries followed through a July 13, 2026 "Order" entry (title only, not yet read); as of that entry the case had not been closed. Update 2026-08-25: The N.D. Cal. docket (3:25-cv-10825) shows three entries dated Aug. 19, 2026: entry 75, an order captioned as resolving three motions to dismiss (one expressly for lack of jurisdiction); a text-only "Terminate Civil Case" entry; and entry 76, "Judgment." Taken together these close the case as of that date, superseding the earlier record that it remained open. Neither entry 75 nor entry 76 was available to read, so the fact of closure is recorded from docket entries while the basis for it is deliberately left unstated. CourtListener continues to report no termination date for this docket, which is stale and should not be read as the case being open. Update 2026-09-03: An earlier Ninth Circuit appeal in this action was not previously recorded. The N.D. California docket shows ECF 27 (Jan. 5, 2026), “NOTICE OF APPEAL to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals filed by Frank Tufano. (Appeal fee FEE NOT PAID.)”, and ECF 28 (Jan. 8, 2026), “USCA Case Number 26-146 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for 27 Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit filed by Frank Tufano.” The appellate number is taken from the district docket’s own entry, not from caption matching. No Ninth Circuit docket for No. 26-146 is mirrored in RECAP, and the appeal fee is recorded as unpaid, so the appeal’s outcome is not established and no disposition should be inferred from its absence. The Aug. 19, 2026 closure entries (ECF 75, an order resolving three motions to dismiss including one for lack of jurisdiction; ECF 76, Judgment; and an unnumbered Terminate Civil Case entry, all before Judge Rita F. Lin) were re-confirmed this pass; the text of the closing order still has not been read.
Research status: Source-backed transfer and closure date (docket entries); the Aug. 19, 2026 closing order and judgment were not readable
Research notes: Nov. 4, 2025 R&R described Tufano as a 'prodigious, but prodigiously unsuccessful, pro se litigant' and cited a series of earlier dismissed cases, including Filatova, Reddit, TikTok, Frankies Free Range Meat Conspirators and Levy. Update 2026-08-15: the July 13, 2026 docket entry (categorized only "Order") is the newest on file and postdates everything else recorded here -- its text has not been read and is worth a targeted follow-up. Update 2026-08-25: The July 13, 2026 "Order" entry flagged previously is no longer the newest entry on this docket and its text still has not been read. Judge Rita F. Lin's May 6, 2026 dismissal order, read in full, provided that "[i]f Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint, all of his claims will be dismissed with prejudice"; an amended complaint was filed June 5, 2026, so the Aug. 19, 2026 order resolved motions directed at that amended pleading.
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.
Order transferred the remaining case to the Northern District of California; Taban defendants had been dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction and RealSelf dismissed without prejudice for failure to timely serve.
December 15, 2025 ruling source — govinfo.gov ↗R&R described Tufano as a prodigious but prodigiously unsuccessful pro se litigant and cited multiple earlier federal cases that had been dismissed or otherwise adversely resolved.
November 4, 2025 ruling source — govinfo.gov ↗Granted Google/Alphabet's renewed motion to dismiss the transferred action, with leave to amend.
May 6, 2026 ruling source — courtlistener.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.
Taken from the Northern District of California docket 3:25-cv-10825 - entry 27 (2026-01-05), 'NOTICE OF APPEAL to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals filed by Frank Tufano. (Appeal fee FEE NOT PAID.)', and entry 28 (2026-01-08), assigning USCA Case Number 26-146. The open question recorded on this row - whether No. 26-146 was one of the two premature appeals resolved by mandates of 2026-06-22 - was resolved on 2026-09-10 by reading that docket in full: entry 66 is an 'ORDER of USCA #26-146' dated 2026-05-28 and entry 65 an 'ORDER of USCA #26-2213' of the same date, followed by two 'USCA Mandate' entries, 71 and 72, both dated 2026-06-22. The second appeal is No. 26-2213, taken from the notice of appeal at entry 55 (2026-04-06) and now recorded separately. Both appellate orders and both mandates are docket-entry titles only and were not read, and the Ninth Circuit holds no mirrored docket for either number.
Record source — courtlistener.com ↗The second Ninth Circuit appeal in this action, recovered 2026-09-10 by reading the Northern District of California docket 3:25-cv-10825 in full. Its number had never been recorded, which is why the appellate layer carried an open question about how many appeals arose from this action. The sequence: notice of appeal at entry 55 (2026-04-06), 'NOTICE OF APPEAL to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals filed by Frank Tufano. (Appeal fee FEE NOT PAID.)'; an order of 2026-04-08 stating that the notice did not stay the case and that the pending motion to dismiss would proceed; a mailed request for payment of the docket fee on 2026-04-13; then 'ORDER of USCA #26-2213' at entry 65 (2026-05-28) and one of the two 'USCA Mandate' entries of 2026-06-22, entries 71 and 72, the other belonging to No. 26-146. Both appellate orders and both mandates are docket-entry titles only and were not read.
Record source — courtlistener.com ↗Strength labels are research classifications, not judicial declarations that the litigant is vexatious.
R&R described Tufano as a prodigious but prodigiously unsuccessful pro se litigant and cited a series of earlier dismissed federal cases.
Source — govinfo.gov ↗Sequence does not by itself prove motive or causation.
In the Google/Taban-related case, Magistrate Judge Carlson described Tufano as a 'prodigious, but prodigiously unsuccessful, pro se litigant' and cited several earlier dismissed Tufano cases.
Source — govinfo.gov ↗A notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit filed Jan. 5, 2026 (appeal fee unpaid) was assigned Ninth Circuit No. 26-146 on Jan. 8, 2026, as recorded on the district docket itself. No Ninth Circuit docket for this number is mirrored in RECAP and the appeal’s outcome is not established.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗The transferred N.D. Cal. action (3:25-cv-10825) was terminated: an order resolving three motions to dismiss, a Terminate Civil Case entry and a Judgment entry all appear on the docket for this date.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Federal removal record identifies Lackawanna 25-5634.
Federal source — pacermonitor.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.
uh you know real self Google all of these plastic surgery review platforms are conspiring to protect his reputation which is a whole another lawsuit I have to file
The longest-lead pre-filing announcement located anywhere in this research, and among the most specific. Published 2025-03-19, it names RealSelf and Google — both tracked parties in this research — and states outright that suing them is "a whole another lawsuit I have to file." C018 (Tufano v. Google, Lackawanna 2025-05634) was filed 2025-07-25, 128 days later, and both RealSelf and the Taban defendants appear in it, per the case records for C018 and C058. Recorded as a temporal fact: the stated intent precedes the filing by four months and names the parties; no stronger characterisation than that is made here.
Why this classification: Alleges the review platforms are conspiring to protect the same surgeon at the centre of the eye-surgery litigation and calls that "a whole another lawsuit I have to file" — a further action on the dispute already being litigated.
Watch at 00:16 — youtube.com ↗people that plays firsttime orders and they make stuff up and then they leave slanderous reviews about my company so it's been going on for a while it's unfortunate but the reason they do that is because you know when someone who hasn't bought from me and they go to Google reviews and see these fake slanderous reviews it hurts my business so whether they these people will ever be held accountable I don't know
Recorded specifically so that a link that looks obvious is declined on the record. Google is mentioned three times in this video, and C018/C058 (Tufano v. Google) exist. But those cases plead that Google conspired to suppress his own negative reviews of Dr. Taban; here the grievance is that Google hosts fake negative reviews of his business and that nobody is held accountable for them. Same platform, opposite direction of grievance — a trap this research has documented repeatedly. The passage does bear on C040, whose § 241 claim covers exactly this fake-review-plus-chargeback pattern.
Watch at 16:14 — youtube.com ↗submitted my review to real self a few weeks ago now and guess what they never proved it it's not on the website I put a 100% factual story showing the website botched by ton.com and I also submitted them the receipts of me paying for the plastic surgery
The specific factual grievance against a named, tracked defendant. "Real self" resolves to RealSelf Inc, a defendant in C018 (Lackawanna County 2025-05634, filed 2025-07-25) and C058 (M.D. Pa. 3:25-cv-01574, filed 2025-08-22), both grouped under the Google / RealSelf litigation. The statement precedes the earlier of those filings by about six months — a pre-filing statement of the grievance rather than any commentary on a pending case. One caption caveat: "they never proved it" is almost certainly "approved it."
Watch at 00:23 — youtube.com ↗so these websites these reviews whether it's Google reviews Yelp real self any general Google search you cannot trust these for any plastic surgeon you cannot
Names two of the three defendant families in the Google / RealSelf litigation in one sentence — Google (Google/Alphabet Inc in C018 and C058) and RealSelf Inc — plus Yelp, which is not a tracked party. This is the generalised “review platforms are captured” theory that C018 and C058 were later pleaded on. The tier is Moderate, with no filing-conduct factor.
Watch at 00:44 — youtube.com ↗man I don't even think my review was live for a few days before tabon got his buddies at Google to remove it as all he cares about is butchering your face to pad his wallet now my review is visible to me when I'm logged into Google and it has 46 likes so it should be at the top of the page for anyone but in any other browser when I'm not logged in poof my review is magically gone
The strongest quote among those researched from this video. It states, on a dated public record, the specific factual allegation that later underlies the tracked Google action — that a negative review he wrote was removed from public view at the surgeon's instance — and it names both sides of it: Google (with Alphabet Inc, all tracked defendants) and Taban (captioned "tabon"). It also supplies a checkable operational detail: the review shows 46 likes when logged in and is absent when logged out. He describes no filing conduct — no case, court, docket, judge or lawyer is named anywhere in the video, and no suit against Google existed yet. Tier: Moderate (No filing-conduct factor)
Watch / source — youtube.com ↗because Google reviews, Real Self [caption garble — "RealSelf"], any sort of platform that hosts reviews for plastic surgeons is 100% controlled by them.
Names Google and RealSelf in one breath, three months before the two are named together as defendants in C018 and again in C058. The allegation — platform control of surgeon reviews — is the pleaded theory of both. Tier: Moderate (No filing-conduct factor)
Why this classification: Moderate because he names Google and RealSelf together and states the platform-control theory three months before those same two are sued together on that theory in C018 and C058, but his words describe no filing, only the alleged wrong.
Watch at 00:06 — youtube.com ↗So whether I'm going to sue Google in the future for that is up in the air.
A prospective filing named against a specific, later-actual defendant, 88 days before the first tracked Google action was filed. Tiered Moderate rather than Strong because no case existed on the publish date and none is identified in the words — the Strong rubric needs an identified case plus a core factor, and a prospective filing is neither. Tier: Moderate (Threatened or prospective filing)
Why this classification: Moderate because he names Google as a possible future defendant 88 days before the first tracked Google action was filed, but frames it only as "up in the air" — no case existed on the publish date and none is identified in the words, so it cannot reach Strong.
Watch at 00:41 — youtube.com ↗But any sort of online review thing, these doctors pay a lot of money to have all of the negative reviews removed. And on top of that, most of the good reviews are completely fake and fabricated.
States the wrong that C018 and C058 plead — paid removal of negative reviews — before either was filed, and states it as a general market practice rather than as a claim against a particular defendant. Tier: Moderate (No filing-conduct factor)
Watch at 00:46 — youtube.com ↗Yeah. I mean, I I really can't recommend that anyone ever get cosmetic surgery because the reputation of these doctors is completely fabricated. You know, Google reviews, Real Self, all that stuff is controlled.
He names both defendants of a case that did not yet exist. C018, Tufano v. Google (Lackawanna 2025-05634, in the Google / RealSelf dispute), was filed 2025-07-25 — twenty-seven days after publication — against Google, Alphabet Inc and RealSelf Inc, and its recorded refiling basis describes the wrong pleaded as "suppression of his negative reviews on Google's platform." The grievance in this sentence is that review platforms are controlled so as to fabricate a surgeon's reputation. "Real Self" is the captions' split-word rendering of RealSelf — a caption defect this research has already documented; the spelling as captioned matches no tracked name until the words are joined.
Watch at 05:16 — youtube.com ↗And you know what this reminds me of? This is exactly what happened with Dr. Taban.
The creator himself connects the All-Ways wagyu-shipment dispute to the Taban eye-surgery dispute, and the connecting theory is specifically the manipulation of Google reviews — the same subject matter as the tracked case C058 (Tufano v. Google LLC et al, M.D. Pa. 3:25-cv-01574, filed 2025-08-22, since transferred to N.D. Cal.) and as the Google/RealSelf-reviews-related suit already described in this research alongside the video “Dr. Taban GETS RESTRAINING ORDER!? Not Quite.”. A dispute-to-dispute link asserted by the party himself is worth recording even though it is not itself evidence the disputes are connected.
Why this classification: Draws a parallel between the review-removal episode and the Taban eye-surgery dispute.
Watch at 00:23 — youtube.com ↗And his Google review page is pristine. So, Dr. Taban is free to butcher as many people as he can for as much money as he can get his grubby hands on.
States the asserted injury behind the Google-related litigation in one line — that the platform's review display protects the defendant while (per 0:16) fake reviews harm his own business. Useful to a research-case-claims-style pass on C058, which currently has no claim summary drawn from a public statement.
Why this classification: Contrasts the surgeon's unblemished review page with his own account of the outcome.
Watch at 00:31 — youtube.com ↗And this is why I filed the lawsuit against Google and Real Self for manipulating their reviews because if they were 100% truthful, I would have never gotten this surgery.
Confirms in the past tense that he filed the review-manipulation suit, names both platform defendants, and states the reliance theory in one sentence: truthful reviews would have deterred the surgery.
Why this classification: Moderate because he confirms a filing he has made, a non-core factor, and gives no count and no sequence of suits, so the repeat-filing reading carried by other statements on this channel is not available here. Naming RealSelf alongside Google is what fixes which Google action is meant, since RealSelf is a defendant in that action and in no other tracked Google case.
Watch at 00:27 — youtube.com ↗Guys can search up that lawsuit. Frank Tfano versus Google LLC.
He gives the case caption on camera and tells viewers to look it up. That is rare on this channel, where references are normally to having sued someone with no identifier attached.
Why this classification: Moderate because confirming a filing is a non-core factor, but the identification is the strongest in this batch: the caption is spoken in the transcript itself, not carried by the title, and it matches the federal styling of the tracked action. The surname as captioned is a known recurring garble of the plaintiff's own name.
Watch at 00:55 — youtube.com ↗There's there's a few new negative reviews there, which is why I filed a lawsuit against Google because if they were being truthful about their reviews, it's a very likely possibility that I would have never gotten this surgery.
States in the past tense that the speaker has filed a lawsuit against Google, and gives the reliance theory behind it, that truthful reviews would have deterred him from the surgery.
Why this classification: A filing is confirmed on camera against a named tracked defendant about a month after the federal docket opened, but no case number or court is given and the statement reports an existing docket rather than any repeat filing.
Watch at 00:35 — youtube.com ↗He tricks patients with all of these fake reviews, this fake reputation he's paid for [...] And then when he messes up, you can't do anything. He pay — he gets the review taken down. He pays off Google. He pays off real self. All the lawyers are bought and paid for. You can't defend yourself. No one finds out he botched you cuz they control everything. And he laughs.
Names three tracked defendants in one passage and states the theory that ties them together, that the surgeon pays Google and RealSelf to remove adverse reviews. These are unproven allegations against tracked parties and the archive takes no position on them.
Why this classification: The parties are identified by name and the passage is the plain-language version of the connection the review-platform dispute group is built on, but no case, court or docket is named and no filing conduct is described.
Watch at 01:00 — youtube.com ↗I filed a lawsuit against Google myself explaining what happened, showing this evidence, but I mean, I guarantee it's going to go nowhere. These evil people control the court system and they don't care about anything besides themselves.
Confirms on camera that he has sued Google, a tracked defendant, states the theory of the suit, and predicts it will go nowhere because the courts are controlled by the defendants' side.
Why this classification: Moderate on two non-core factors: he confirms a filing he has made, and he alleges the forum is captured. Neither is a core factor and no repeat filing, post-adverse-decision action or cost-imposition motive is described. On the 2025-10-24 publication date only two Google actions were live, and the later Lackawanna Google action cannot be the referent because it was not filed until 2026-01-16.
Watch at 00:41 — youtube.com ↗Not only is Google helping surgeons butcher people, they're also harassing small business like mine. So, when you search my business name, Frankie Strange Meat, this fake profile pops up with 33 reviews, 3.4 star rating. I can't manage this. I can't control this. It's like a fake review page for my own business.
States the review and search-visibility grievance against Google in his own words, alleging an uncontrollable fake profile for his business, and in the same sentence joins that grievance to the surgery dispute. No case, docket number or court is named anywhere in the video.
Why this classification: It restates a pleaded grievance against a named tracked defendant, which is more than general commentary, but no filing is described, announced or threatened, so it stays at Moderate.
Watch / source — youtube.com ↗The real review page, which you can't even really find on Google, has almost 500 reviews. And since it's legitimate, it's actually much better. And this also shows how they control the search algorithm. They don't want you buying from my business, Frankie Serrange Meat.
Alleges that Google deliberately controls its search algorithm to suppress the genuine review page for his business, the business-harm limb of the same grievance. Recorded as his allegation; no position is taken on whether any profile is fake or any ranking manipulated.
Why this classification: Same footing as the preceding statement: a named tracked defendant and a pleaded subject matter, but no case identified and no filing conduct of his own described, which fixes it at Moderate.
Watch at 00:19 — youtube.com ↗The scariest part about all of this plastic surgery stuff is that these doctors can completely fabricate their reputation by paying off Google. It's actually it's insane. And I've made several videos on this, so I won't go into depth.
States the substance of the tracked search and review platform grievance in his own words, that doctors can fabricate a reputation by paying a search platform. Both cases in that dispute were pending when this was published. He also says he has made several videos on this, a pointer to further channel material.
Why this classification: Names a tracked defendant on the transcript and states the theory underlying that dispute, but reports, announces and threatens no suit, and identifies no case, court or docket.
Watch / source — youtube.com ↗You know who also should be in prison? And I'm not joking. The executives and higherups at these review sites. Whether it's Google or Real Self, even Yelp, all of these plastic surgery review sites and recommendations. Even the moderators on forums like Reddit that have plastic surgery sections.
The transcript names tracked defendants outright rather than by role: two search and review platforms and a forum, which are the defendants in the tracked platform disputes. One platform he names, Yelp, is not a party to any tracked case. The opening word also indicates the clip continues earlier content whose subject cannot be recovered from it.
Why this classification: Names tracked defendants from the transcript rather than the title, but describes no filing, no case and no court, and the accusation concerns the platforms' conduct rather than his own litigation.
Watch / source — youtube.com ↗Google wants you to get botched because that is how they make the most money. Surgeons pay Google for fake reviews which drives business to them. Then they operate on you with their fraudulent skill level, mess you up, and then you go to leave a bad review, but then they say, "Oh, if you pay us more money, we'll take down the bad review.
States the substantive theory behind the tracked Google actions, naming Google in the transcript rather than only in the title: that surgeons pay for favourable reviews and that negative reviews are removed for further payment. The closing clause voices an imagined counterparty and is not a quotation of anything anyone said.
Why this classification: It states the allegation at the centre of the tracked review-suppression actions and names the defendant aloud, but it describes no filing, threat or court outcome, and no case number or court is identified.
Watch / source — youtube.com ↗Uh, other things in favor of that are me not getting compensated, him getting away with it completely, you know, all the Google reviews being removed, anything negative about this doctor being wiped completely off online.
Applies the review-suppression theory of the tracked Google actions to the surgeon in the eye-surgery dispute, offering the removal of negative reviews and his own lack of compensation as circumstantial support for an intentional-harm theory. This ties two tracked dispute groups together in one sentence.
Why this classification: Connects two tracked dispute groups and reports that he has not been compensated, but the link is drawn by subject matter rather than by anything the speaker identifies, and no filing conduct is described.
Watch at 01:18 — youtube.com ↗Dr. Tiban is back to the perfect five-star rating, baby. Google at the top of the payroll every single week. They wipe his reviews back to five stars. Literal perfect fivestar rating. But if I log into my personal Google account, I suddenly see my one-star review.
States outside any pleading the factual core of the tracked Google action: that his one-star review of the surgeon is visible when he logs into his own account but that the listing shows a perfect rating to everyone else. It describes the opposing parties' alleged conduct, not his own filing behaviour.
Why this classification: The statement restates in the speaker's own words the review-suppression wrong pleaded in the tracked Google actions, but it names no case number, court or docket and describes no filing conduct.
Watch / source — youtube.com ↗That's why I have a lawsuit against Google that is of course just getting thrown out by the judge because yeah, the judge is going to be on Google's payroll.
Three things in one sentence: he confirms a suit on foot against a tracked defendant, reports it as being thrown out, and attributes that to the judge being on the defendant's payroll. The judge is not named on camera.
Why this classification: It confirms a filing already made and reports an adverse outcome, both docket-facing facts, alongside an allegation of judicial bias, but none of these is conduct of the repeat-filing kind and no case number, court or judge is identified.
Watch at 00:23 — youtube.com ↗The majority of the negative reviews about Dr. Tibon on Google, Real Self, and Yelp have been completely wiped clean and removed. Whether this is Dr. Tibon or a private party or just the review sites taking them down on their own, I cannot say that for certain factually.
The subject and the platforms named are all tracked entities, and the statement describes the factual grievance underlying the two review-platform actions. Its second sentence is an express refusal to attribute the removals to anyone, and the two sentences must be kept together.
Why this classification: It names tracked defendants and states the grievance, but describes platform conduct rather than his own filing conduct, and no case, court or docket appears anywhere in the video.
Watch / source — youtube.com ↗And when I tried to put my review on Real Self, showing receipts from the doctor's office, the photos, it was never even posted in the first place. And you cannot have a more legitimate review than that. So, these platforms are really crooked, really evil, and as I've said many times, should be held as equally responsible for botching people as the doctor himself. If anything, they're more responsible.
A statement of the theory of liability against the review platforms, that they are as responsible as the surgeon or more so, which is the theory the two tracked platform actions pursue. He marks it as a position he has stated many times.
Why this classification: It states a theory of liability rather than an act of filing, and the platforms are identified by trade name only, with no case, court or docket referenced.
Watch at 00:32 — youtube.com ↗No, because Real Self is still doing the same stuff that these other review platforms are. They are taking bribes from doctors and removing negative reviews.
States outside any pleading the substance of the wrong he attributes to the review platforms, removal of negative reviews in exchange for payment, which is the subject matter the dataset records for the Google and RealSelf action.
Why this classification: Describes the alleged conduct of the opposing parties rather than any filing of his own, so no filing-conduct factor applies. It is a party allegation with no source offered and no judicial finding behind it.
Watch at 00:05 — youtube.com ↗And I have multiple lawsuits against these people. Uh the main lawsuit is against Google, Real Self, Yelp, all these review platforms.
A self-report of filing volume, multiple lawsuits, plus confirmation that a suit is on foot against a named set of platforms. Two of the three named targets are tracked defendants; the third, Yelp, does not appear anywhere in the dataset.
Why this classification: Records a self-reported count of suits and a confirmed filing, but neither is one of the three core filing-conduct factors and no case, court or docket number is named on camera, so it falls short of the published Strong rubric.
Watch at 00:13 — youtube.com ↗They're removing all the negative that's that was another lawsuit that just got thrown out. That's if anything that's almost more ridiculous than this Tiban lawsuit getting dismissed because Google and Real Self are literally just deleting all the negative reviews.
Reports two dismissals in one passage - the medical action and a review-platform action. The archive records that the dates do not line up cleanly, so the second case is not established.
Why this classification: Reports two dismissals; docket facts rather than conduct.
Watch at 01:48 — youtube.com ↗the search results are so manipulated by these people in favor of them that the average person is not going to be able to find any negative information on these plastic surgeries to the point where it would actually deter them from getting the surgery
This is the theory of the later Google/RealSelf action, stated on a dated public record roughly six and a half months before it was filed — search results manipulated so that negative information about a surgeon cannot be found, with the reliance consequence spelled out ("to the point where it would actually deter them"). But it names no platform. "these people" is unspecified and could equally mean the surgeons, the platforms, or both; the sentence's own grammar leans toward the surgeons. No filing conduct is described. Tier: Context (No filing-conduct factor)
Watch at 00:16 — youtube.com ↗Each video has its own research page with its verified publish date, timestamped statements and case links. A researched link between a video and a docket record is not a finding of causation in either direction.
Frank Tufano Litigation Research. "Tufano v. Google LLC et al (3:25-cv-01574)". Research last verified September 3, 2026. https://suedbyfranktufano.com/cases/3-25-cv-01574-tufano-v-google-llc-et-al/