Frank Tufano lawsuits involving Alphabet Inc
5 originating actions · 6 docket records
Cases involving Alphabet Inc
Alphabet Inc is named in 5 de-duplicated originating actions in this dataset (6 docket records) across 2 courts filed between July 25, 2025 and October 13, 2026. 2 of the docket records carry a recorded outcome.
| Filed | Case | Court | Status / outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| October 13, 2026 | 3:26-cv-03046Tufano v. Google LLC et al | U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania | Pending; complaint filed Oct. 13, 2026 against ten defendants and assigned to Magistrate Judge Phillip J. Caraballo. The $405 filing fee was paid the same day, the complaint was deemed filed and summonses were issued as to all ten defendants. No defendant has appeared or responded and no order is recorded. |
| October 13, 2026 | 3:26-cv-03047Tufano v. White Oak Pastures et al | U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania | Pending; complaint filed Oct. 13, 2026 against White Oak Pastures, REP Provisions, Thomas Cattle Company and Alphabet Inc., and assigned to Magistrate Judge Phillip J. Caraballo. The $405 filing fee was paid the same day, the complaint was deemed filed and summonses were issued as to all defendants. No defendant has appeared or responded and no order is recorded. |
| October 6, 2026 | 3:26-cv-02977Tufano v. Google LLC | U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania | Pending; complaint filed Oct. 6, 2026 against Google LLC, Alphabet Inc., Richard Burgess and Vegan Gains, and assigned to Magistrate Judge Phillip J. Caraballo. The court’s own list of parties carries a fifth defendant, Youtube, in its own right as well as a trading name of Google LLC; the complaint and summons entries name four. An emergency request for a writ of seizure and an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order were filed the same day, and a notice filed by the plaintiff records that emergency status was denied by verbal order. An application to proceed in forma pauperis is undecided and no defendant has responded. |
| January 16, 2026 | 2026-00262Tufano v. Google | Lackawanna County | Pending; Preliminary Objections unresolved |
| August 22, 2025 | 3:25-cv-01574Tufano v. Google LLC et al | U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania | Transferred to N.D. Cal.; renewed motion to dismiss granted with leave to amend; case terminated Aug. 19, 2026 |
| July 25, 2025 | 2025-05634Tufano v. Google | Lackawanna County | Removed; later transferred |
Judges who have ruled in these cases
Listing a judge records who decided a motion or entered an order in a case naming this party. It is not an evaluation of the judge.
Court & ruling records in these cases
Recorded only where tied to an order, opinion or report and recommendation.
Personal jurisdiction / service / transfer
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.
Court observation of litigation history (R&R)
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.
Motion to Dismiss Granted (with leave to amend)
Granted Google/Alphabet's renewed motion to dismiss the transferred action, with leave to amend.
Order on applications to proceed in forma pauperis; referral to Civil Motions Court en banc under Pa.R.Civ.P. 240(j)(1)
By order of July 2, 2025, captioned In re Frank Tufano and docketed to the court’s administrative-order docket at No. 2025 CV 1, the court addressed his applications to proceed in forma pauperis under Pa.R.Civ.P. 240. The order records that in the eighteen…
What the filings allege
- 3:26-cv-03046Plaintiff sued ten defendants on October 13, 2026: Alphabet Inc., Ancestral Supplements LLC, Google LLC, Heart & Soil Supplements LLC, Joe Rogan Podcast LLC, Brian Johnson, Joe Rogan, Paul Saladino, The Fittest Ever LLC, and a placeholder defendant docketed as Other YouTube Influencers To be Named.
- 3:26-cv-03047Plaintiff sued White Oak Pastures, REP Provisions, Thomas Cattle Company and Alphabet Inc.
- 3:26-cv-02977Plaintiff sued Google LLC, doing business as YouTube, together with Alphabet Inc., Richard Burgess and the Vegan Gains channel on October 6, 2026, invoking the court’s diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
- 2026-00262Plaintiff's Verified Complaint pleads a nearly identical dispute to the one in companion case C027 — an approximately $40,000-$45,000 roof/water-damage insurance claim against defendants Meagher Insurance Agency and Nazareth Mutual Insurance Co.
- 3:25-cv-01574Plaintiff, originally filing in Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas before removal to federal court, sues Google LLC, Dr.
- 2025-05634Plaintiff Frank Tufano, pro se, filed this complaint in the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas (later removed to federal court as 3:25-cv-01574, tracked separately as C058) against Google LLC, Dr.
These summarise the plaintiff's own allegations as pleaded. They are party filings, not court findings, and no court has adopted them by recording them here. Each links to the full summary on the case page.
Public statements by filing-restriction factor
13 researched statements are linked to cases naming Alphabet Inc and describe filing conduct of a kind the indicator data records, ordered with the factors closest to the filing-restriction criteria first. A factor records what the speaker said — not that a court found it, not an allegation by this project against Alphabet Inc, and not that anyone has been determined a vexatious litigant. Each card links to the video it was transcribed from. Statements whose words describe no filing conduct are not ranked here; they are listed on each case page and on the video's own research page.
What these tiers are: “Strong”, “Moderate” and “Context” are this project’s research classification of how closely a public statement bears on the documented filing-restriction indicators. They are not judicial findings, not an adjudication of anything said in a video, and not a determination that Frank Tufano is a vexatious litigant — no court in this dataset has made that determination. Court findings, party statements and research classifications are kept in separate evidence layers throughout this site; see Methodology.
How a tier is assigned. Strong — the statement names a tracked case or dispute and describes filing conduct of the kind the indicators document: repeat filing on the same dispute, filing after an adverse decision, or filing framed as imposing cost on the opponent. Moderate — it bears on litigation conduct or chronology in a tracked dispute, but the case link is tentative or the statement describes something other than the speaker’s own filing behaviour. Context — general commentary with no specific tracked case identified.
What the factor labels are. Each statement is also labelled with the filing-restriction factor its own words describe, so the reason for a classification is visible rather than implied. Most factors correspond to a criterion recorded in the indicator data, and the three that do not are marked as such there — a filing that has only been threatened has no docket to record, and an allegation about a court is the speaker’s characterisation rather than a recorded criterion. Repeat filing on the same dispute, filing after an adverse decision and cost imposition as stated motive are the three that can qualify a statement as Strong; threatened or prospective filing, self-reported filing volume, filing announced or confirmed, adverse outcome described and judicial or forum bias alleged record related but weaker signals. A statement that describes no filing conduct carries no factor badge. A factor records what the speaker said — not that a court found it, and not that anyone has been determined a vexatious litigant.
These quotations can no longer be checked at their source. Every quotation on this site was transcribed from the speaker’s own YouTube channel. That channel was removed in October 2026; on 23 October 2026 all 980 catalogued video ids returned “not found”, and the channel address itself no longer resolves. YouTube’s own basis for removing it is not part of any record this project can verify, so none is asserted here. Nothing was withdrawn by this project.
What survives is the evidence, not the link. The verbatim caption transcript each quotation was read from was archived, dated, at the time the video was catalogued, and the timestamp on each card is the moment in that transcript where the words appear. The transcripts are held unaltered and are not republished. What a reader can no longer do is open the original and hear it, and nothing on this site can restore that. Seventy-four statements — those whose own words name a core filing-restriction factor — survive as clips in this project’s own compilation, and those cards link into it at the right moment. Nothing else is re-hosted. See Methodology.
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.
Quotations on this page are excerpts: a quotation ending in an ellipsis is shortened here for length. The full wording, and the reason recorded for its pattern-relevance tier, are on the video’s own research page — follow the ¶ permalink on any card.
These quotations can no longer be checked at their source. Every quotation on this site was transcribed from the speaker’s own YouTube channel. That channel was removed in October 2026; on 23 October 2026 all 980 catalogued video ids returned “not found”, and the channel address itself no longer resolves. YouTube’s own basis for removing it is not part of any record this project can verify, so none is asserted here. Nothing was withdrawn by this project.
What survives is the evidence, not the link. The verbatim caption transcript each quotation was read from was archived, dated, at the time the video was catalogued, and the timestamp on each card is the moment in that transcript where the words appear. The transcripts are held unaltered and are not republished. What a reader can no longer do is open the original and hear it, and nothing on this site can restore that. Seventy-four statements — those whose own words name a core filing-restriction factor — survive as clips in this project’s own compilation, and those cards link into it at the right moment. Nothing else is re-hosted. See Methodology.
Filing announcement / stated motive¶
There is a lawsuit in the state court. Uh I'm filing a lawsuit in the federal court tomorrow because this is this is absurd. You know, we're talking $150,000 in damages.
A stated intention to file a specific federal action, paired with an acknowledgement that a state action over the same subject matter is already pending — the clearest single-sentence example in this research of the parallel state/federal filing pattern this dataset tracks. It also supplies a damages figure ($150,000) found nowhere in the docket material.
Source removed. Quoted at 01:02 in the archived transcript. Play at 21:43 in this project’s compilation ↗
Repeated/escalatory filing¶
I have zero faith in the court system which is why I've always been trying to make this as public as possible and we did file multiple lawsuits against this doctor which the judges seem to be throwing out and we also had a lawsuit against…
The speaker states that multiple lawsuits were filed against the same doctor over the same grievance, that a separate suit against Google was thrown out, and that an appeal from that decision was also rejected.
Source removed. Quoted at 01:48 in the archived transcript. Play at 17:59 in this project’s compilation ↗
Filing announcement / stated motive¶
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.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:16 in the archived transcript. Play at 1:38 in this project’s compilation ↗
Legal escalation / contemplated proceeding¶
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)
Source removed. Quoted at 00:41 in the archived transcript.
Self-reported litigation count¶
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.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:13 in the archived transcript.
Adverse-ruling reaction / judicial allegation¶
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.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:23 in the archived transcript.
Filing announcement¶
The the [ __ ] adjuster sent me a letter saying, "Oh, you need to provide." He's like still trying to like we're two months into a lawsuit and he's still trying to send me letters about, oh, verifying the claim as if they ever planned on…
Confirms a lawsuit already pending against the insurer at the time of publication and dates it to roughly two months earlier, which brackets two tracked filings in this dispute.
Source removed. Quoted at 08:24 in the archived transcript.
Filing announcement¶
The insurance companies have refused to pay out on the claims, which is insane. So, I'm literally taking these insurance companies to court now just to get paid.
A present-tense statement of filing against the insurers, published on the filing date recorded for the Meagher action.
Source removed. Quoted at 01:03 in the archived transcript.
Filing announcement¶
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.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:41 in the archived transcript.
Filing announcement¶
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.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:35 in the archived transcript.
Filing announcement¶
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.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:27 in the archived transcript.
Filing announcement¶
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.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:55 in the archived transcript.
Court-proceeding reaction¶
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…
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.
Source removed. Quoted at 01:48 in the archived transcript.
Named alongside
Other tracked parties named in the same originating actions.
Related dispute groups
- Saladino-related litigationThe Paul Saladino dispute: ten docket records from 2020 to 2026, beginning with Saladino's S.D.N.Y. suit and including later actions Tufano filed himself.
- Google / RealSelf litigationTwo docket records naming Google, Alphabet and RealSelf, filed 2025, removed to federal court and transferred to the Northern District of California.
- Meagher / insurance litigationThree docket records naming Meagher Insurance Agency and Nazareth Mutual, all filed in 2026 in Lackawanna County and the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
This index groups name variants conservatively using the workbook's alias mapping. A repeated defendant does not by itself show that claims were duplicative or meritless.