Source-linked public-record research into lawsuits, outcomes, related proceedings, court rulings, public statements and litigation chronology.
651064/2025 · New York State Supreme Court
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 a single cause of action for fraud against Shopify Inc., Shopify (USA) Inc., and the law firm Lewis & Lin LLC. The complaint alleges that a court order concerning a different, already-dissolved Delaware LLC (“Frankie's Free Range Meat, LLC”) — which plaintiff states is not his operating business — was used by attorney Davis Lin of Lewis & Lin LLC to obtain information from plaintiff's actual online store, and that Shopify complied with the order even after being told it named the wrong entity.
Plaintiff seeks an order directing Shopify and Lewis & Lin LLC to cease using court orders issued against unrelated entities to interfere with his store.
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: A motion seeking to stay unrelated proceedings and quash subpoenas was denied in its entirety. The court stated that plaintiff supplied no cognizable basis for the requested relief and noted no affidavit of service showing that the summons and complaint had been properly served on the defendants.
Research status: Source-backed
Research notes: NYSCEF Case Status: Active as of Aug. 8, 2026. The Feb. 24, 2026 decision is expressly marked NON-FINAL DISPOSITION. Update 2026-09-23: NYSCEF re-checked; the document list is unchanged since the Feb. 25, 2026 decision and the case status remains Active. The assigned judge (Ashlee Crawford) and the deciding judge (James G. Clynes) were already on file in the New York status record. That decision’s PDF is an image-only JBIG2 scan with no text layer, so its reasoning has still not been read from the document itself — the summary on file derives from the docket, not the order.
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.
Court denied the pro se motion in its entirety, stating that there was no cognizable basis to stay unidentified matters in other courts or quash subpoenas in matters not pending before it; the court also noted no affidavit showing proper service of the summons and complaint. The decision is marked non-final.
February 24, 2026 ruling source — iapps.courts.state.ny.us ↗Sequence does not by itself prove motive or causation.
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 ↗The New York court denied Tufano's motion seeking to stay unrelated proceedings and quash subpoenas in its entirety, stating no cognizable basis was shown for the requested relief and noting no affidavit of service showing proper service on the defendants. The decision is expressly marked non-final; NYSCEF still lists the case as Active.
Source — iapps.courts.state.ny.us ↗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.
[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.
Watch at 15:49 — youtube.com ↗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.
Watch at 04:36 — youtube.com ↗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.
Watch at 00:30 — youtube.com ↗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.
Watch at 00:23 — youtube.com ↗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.
Watch at 00:15 — youtube.com ↗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)
Watch / source — youtube.com ↗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.
Watch at 04:19 — youtube.com ↗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 ## Research Notes: 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.
Watch at 01:13 — youtube.com ↗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)
Watch at 01:27 — youtube.com ↗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.
Watch at 00:30 — youtube.com ↗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.
Watch at 01:12 — youtube.com ↗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."
Watch / source — youtube.com ↗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)
Watch at 01:32 — youtube.com ↗There has been some type of organized gangstalking against my business since I've started and we've lost thousands of dollars in chargebacks every single month for over six years now. This is why I tell people never to use Shopify and we're trying to get off the platform. But they will help these gangstalkers steal money from you.
Names Shopify and states a quantified theory of harm attributed to the platform's chargeback handling, thousands of dollars a month over more than six years. That is the substantive grievance behind the tracked Shopify actions in his own words.
Why this classification: Moderate because the platform defendant is named in the audio and the harm is stated with a figure and a duration, which is dispute background rather than general commentary; no filing conduct is described and no case number or court is spoken. The organised-gangstalking framing is his characterisation and is offered without evidence.
Watch / source — youtube.com ↗Someone gets the product delivered, they file a charge back, they always win. They side with the gangstalker. They don't side with the small business.
States the mechanism he attributes the losses to: a customer receives the goods, files a chargeback and prevails, with the platform siding against the small business.
Why this classification: Moderate because it is the clearest single-sentence statement of the theory behind the tracked Shopify actions, with no filing conduct described. No individual is named and no identifying detail about any customer appears in this passage.
Watch at 00:20 — youtube.com ↗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.
Watch at 00:19 — youtube.com ↗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.
Watch at 00:38 — youtube.com ↗If there's any legal issues or or someone gets involved, they will hand over all your records and all your banks is horrendous.
The only litigation-adjacent grievance in the Shopify cluster that is not about fees or the misclick — that the platform surrenders a merchant's records and banking information when legal process arrives. That maps directly onto C095 (Frank Tufano v. Shopify Inc. et al, NY Supreme 651064/2025), whose recorded disposition is that a motion seeking to stay unrelated proceedings and quash subpoenas was denied in its entirety (2026-02-24), the court finding no cognizable basis for the relief. The connection is inferential — he names no case, court or subpoena here — but the subject matter is an unusually close match, and it is the only place in this research where the records-disclosure theory appears.
Why this classification: Warns that the platform will surrender merchant and banking records once a legal matter arises.
Watch at 00:34 — youtube.com ↗And that applies to legal stuff, too. If there's a court issue and they subpoena Shopify, it's not like you owning the website where you can choose not to provide the documents. Shopify will generally comply with the court order and hand them over whatever they want. Whether it's financial documents, uh the bank you're transferring money to, Shopify will go to you and say, "Hey, we got these court documents. Did you deny?" Generally, they will comply with the court order and screw you over
The fullest statement of the records-disclosure theory that “Shopify is EVIL and “Owns” your Store!!!” states in one broken sentence two days earlier, and the strongest support for linking that theory to C095 (Frank Tufano v. Shopify Inc. et al, NY Supreme 651064/2025), whose recorded disposition is that a motion to stay unrelated proceedings and quash subpoenas was denied in its entirety (2026-02-24). He describes exactly that posture — a subpoena to Shopify for financial and banking records, with the merchant unable to prevent compliance. Still inferential: he names no case, court, or subpoena, and speaks generically about "a business owner." Recorded as a strong topical match, not a confirmed link.
Why this classification: Explains that on a subpoena the platform, not the merchant, decides whether to produce financial and banking records.
Watch at 02:00 — youtube.com ↗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.
Watch / source — 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. "Frank Tufano v. Shopify Inc. et al (651064/2025)". Research last verified September 23, 2026. https://suedbyfranktufano.com/cases/651064-2025-frank-tufano-v-shopify-inc-et-al/