Tufano v. Shopify (USA) Inc. 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

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

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

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

Shopify is STEALING FROM SMALL BUSINESS · August 27, 2025

on the email chain from Shopify with their sales rep. The reason he convinced me to pay the $2,000 a month more for the Shopify Plus plan was that reduced rate, which he completely lied to.

The factual predicate of the announced suit, stated as an inducement — a representation by an identified counterparty's sales representative, relied on, and not honoured. That is a breach-of-contract / misrepresentation shape, and it matches the dataset's later coding of C072 as the Shopify grievance "re-pled as breach of contract." He also says the evidence exists in writing ("the email chain from Shopify with their sales rep"). Tier: Moderate (No filing-conduct factor) — a claim predicate, not filing conduct.

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

Thanksgiving Turkeys! New Organs! Jarred Cod Liver! FREE RANGE MEAT VLOG · October 20, 2025

Uh Shopify actually shut down my payments um on organ supplements for selling the hydroxy metrogene theratom stuff uh which I was a little irritated about cuz they just did it with no warning and like I wasn't getting sales for a week.

A dated, on-camera account of a fresh adverse action by a defendant he had already sued at least four times. Shopify sits at the centre of the Shopify / business-platform conspiracy litigation: C013 (Lackawanna, 2025-06-06), C047 (M.D. Pa., 2025-02-21), C050 (2025-06-02), C054 (2025-07-07, dismissed with prejudice on res judicata grounds), C095 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., 2025-02-24). This statement places a new Shopify grievance — a payment processor shutdown on the organsupplements.com storefront, said to have cost him a week of sales — in October 2025, between the C054 dismissal and the filing of C072 Tufano v. Shopify (USA) Inc. et al on 2026-04-20. It describes no filing conduct, which is why the factor is No filing-conduct factor, but it dates a grievance event in a repeat-filing chronology, which is why it is Moderate rather than Context.

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

DO NOT USE SHOPIFY!!! · April 28, 2026

Shopify is horrible. Do not use them. I am stuck with Shopify who has stolen minimum $150,000 from me because if you switch websites as a business owner, you lose all of those customer accounts.

A quantified damages claim of at least 150,000 dollars against Shopify, with his stated reason for not moving to another platform. The figure is uncorroborated by anything in the dataset.

Why this classification: The defendant is named and the loss is quantified, but no filing, case number, court or docket appears in the video, so the link rests on the defendant name alone and no filing conduct is described.

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

DO NOT USE SHOPIFY!!! · April 28, 2026

Their advertised transaction rates are not. I put them into an Excel sheet. Their 2.5% they said they were taking from me was actually about 3.5%. Which adds up over the years and years and years of sales.

The tracked breach-of-contract action over Shopify's handling of his account is recorded as re-pleading the same platform grievance; this is that grievance in the speaker's own words, with the arithmetic he says he performed on the advertised transaction rate.

Why this classification: It matches a pleaded theory in a tracked case closely enough to be worth recording, but the case is never named and the statement describes the defendant's billing rather than his own filing conduct.

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

They are using CHARGEBACKS TO SHUT ME DOWN!!! · May 24, 2026

And that's just on the meat website. on the foods website. The chargebacks were so bad they shut down my Shopify payments. I can only accept payments through PayPal. And 10% of payouts are being held in reserve through a high number of chargebacks.

A specific account of the payment-processing harm at the centre of the tracked Shopify litigation: termination of Shopify Payments, a forced fallback to PayPal, and a ten per cent payout reserve. The entity he describes is carried in the alias table as a tracked defendant.

Why this classification: It describes the opposing party's conduct and the resulting damages rather than any filing of his own, and identifies no docket, so the two pending Shopify actions are inferred from the subject matter and the publication date.

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

They are using CHARGEBACKS TO SHUT ME DOWN!!! · May 24, 2026

And all these people that charge back receive their product in good condition. It's just straight theft and harassment. And Shopify was okay for a bit, but then they started siding with the customers again. … we have to get the foods website off Shopify completely now

States that the platform resolved chargeback disputes against him and that he is moving a second storefront off it, a concrete business consequence bearing on the damages side of the Shopify dispute. Note that a sales solicitation between the two halves of the passage has been elided, so a clip played from the deep link will contain that material.

Why this classification: A business consequence and a characterisation of the opposing party, not filing conduct; no filing is announced, threatened or described anywhere in the video and no case or court is named.

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

Turkey Pet Food! Quiche & Prosciutto Pizza! Equipment! FREE RANGE MEAT VLOG · June 6, 2026

Uh the main issue and the main thing I need help with this week is like like the chargebacks are horrendous. You know, it kind they kind of backed off for a few months and they got so bad on the foods website on the Frankie Strange Foods website. Shopify took away our Shopify payments. That's how bad the chargebacks were. Our Shopify payments got taken away. And not only that, they're holding 10% of our revenue as collateral because of the chargebacks. So, because these gangstalkers have done so many chargebacks, I'm probably going to have to get off Shopify, which I I mean, probably should have done in the first place cuz Shopify is just stealing my money.

The most specific account in the archive of the platform grievance underlying the Shopify dispute: payment processing withdrawn, 10 percent of revenue held back as collateral, chargeback volume given as the cause, and that volume attributed to coordinated actors.

Why this classification: It names a tracked defendant and states the platform grievance in concrete terms, but it describes the platform's conduct and the resulting business harm rather than any filing conduct of his own, and no case or court is named.

Transcript-verified verbatim quote

Kattle Chips! Sourdough Pasta! Meatballs! Pickled Quail Eggs! FREE RANGE MEAT VLOG · September 9, 2026

we did file another lawsuit and what we changed this time was we added the police department to the lawsuit for failing to prosecute against these thieves. And we also added all the banks. So, maybe those factors will change things. You know, we added every credit card provider. We're suing Amex, Mastercard, Discover, Visa, Chase, all all the credit card companies have been sued.

The densest filing-conduct statement in this video, and the actor throughout is himself ("we did file"), in the past tense. He states that a further action on the chargeback grievance has been filed; that "what we changed this time" was adding the police department "for failing to prosecute against these thieves"; that "all the banks" were also added; and that five card networks - Amex, Mastercard, Discover, Visa, Chase - are being sued, with "all the credit card companies have been sued." The phrase *"what we changed this time"* is the load-bearing one for the repeat-filing factor: it frames the action explicitly as a variant of a previous filing on the same grievance, which is stronger than the bare word "another." Held at Moderate, not Strong, because no case, court, docket or date is named and the four competing readings in Research Notes are unresolved - see "Why this is not Strong."

Transcript-verified verbatim quote