Frank Tufano lawsuits involving SHOPIFY (USA) Inc. Corporation Service Company
3 originating actions · 3 docket records
Cases involving SHOPIFY (USA) Inc. Corporation Service Company
SHOPIFY (USA) Inc. Corporation Service Company is named in 3 de-duplicated originating actions in this dataset (3 docket records) in U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania filed between June 2, 2025 and April 20, 2026. 3 of the docket records carry a recorded outcome.
| Filed | Case | Court | Status / outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| April 20, 2026 | 3:26-cv-01019Tufano v. Shopify (USA) Inc. et al | U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania | Sur-reply struck; leave required for any future sur-reply (non-final) |
| July 7, 2025 | 3:25-cv-01227Tufano v. SHOPIFY (USA) Inc. Corporation Service Company et al | U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania | Dismissed |
| June 2, 2025 | 3:25-cv-00975Tufano v. SHOPIFY (USA) Inc. Corporation Service Company et al | U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania | Dismissed |
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.
Res judicata / repetitive identical claims
Court held that Tufano raised claims identical to those previously dismissed in C040 and that the claims were barred by res judicata, collateral estoppel and issue preclusion; complaint dismissed with prejudice and leave to amend denied as futile. Update…
Rule 41(b) dismissal
Final order adopted the R&R, dismissed the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), and directed the Clerk to close the case.
What the filings allege
- 3:26-cv-01019Plaintiff sued Shopify (USA) Inc.
- 3:25-cv-01227Proceeding pro se, Tufano filed a complaint on June 6, 2025 in the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas (removed to federal court by Shopify on July 7, 2025) alleging that Shopify (USA) Inc.
- 3:25-cv-00975Plaintiff alleges that Shopify (USA) Inc.
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
16 researched statements are linked to cases naming SHOPIFY (USA) Inc. Corporation Service Company 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 SHOPIFY (USA) Inc. Corporation Service Company, 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.
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.
Repeated/escalatory filing¶
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…
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 ↗Repeated/escalatory filing¶
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 ↗Repeated/escalatory filing¶
I need to — I need to get off Shopify as soon as possible and we're going to file another lawsuit against them and uh and try to get compensate[d].
A prospective filing announced on camera against a tracked defendant in a tracked dispute group, with the word "another" doing the work — he had already sued Shopify at least four times before this date (C095 filed 2025-02-24, C047 filed 2025-02-21, C050 filed 2025-06-02, C013 filed 2025-06-06, C054 filed 2025-07-07), and the dataset codes every one of those as refiling_of_prior_case = Yes.
Watch at 02:40 — youtube.com ↗Repeated/escalatory filing¶
This is the This is Dr. Tobant getting my Tik Tok taken down. This is uh Shopify getting transferred to federal court. This is the guy that sold me all the broken restaurant equipment. There's like three different Tabon cases.
He states, in his own words and in the present tense, that he is running three concurrent actions against the same defendant on the same grievance. That is the repeat-filing core factor stated by the speaker rather than inferred by a researcher, and the defendant is a tracked party (Dr. Taban, in the Taban eye-surgery dispute group). The count checks out against the tracked record: as of 2025-08-06, C046 (M.D. Pa., filed 2025-01-02), C101 (LA Superior, filed 2025-01-06) and C053 (M.D. Pa., filed 2025-06-27 — the TikTok removal, in which Taban and Mehryar Taban MD Inc are named defendants) were all live. He also names the TikTok takedown and the Shopify removal in the same breath, tying two more tracked matters to the same account. One classification caveat, stated for transparency: the tier rests on a caption correction. The auto-captions render the name as “Tobant” and “Tabon”, spellings that match no tracked party; only the correction to Taban identifies the defendant, and a reader who declines to rest a tier on a corrected proper noun would read this as Moderate. The Strong classification stands because the same video’s captions render “Dr. Taban” correctly at 17:22 and the video’s own description spells “Dr. Taban” correctly four times, so the party’s identity is not in genuine doubt.
Watch at 20:21 — youtube.com ↗Repeated/escalatory filing¶
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 ↗Repeated/escalatory filing¶
We filed the new lawsuit against Shopify as well because the judge wouldn't let me file um just against the chargeback people. And then we had to file uh some stuff against the current Tibon lawsuits.
He names Shopify (a tracked party in the Shopify / business-platform litigation) and states that a new action was filed because a judge had refused to let the prior one proceed — the conduct both core factors describe, stated as the reason for filing. Two tracked actions sit within ten days on either side: C050 (M.D. Pa. 3:25-cv-00975, filed 2025-06-02, whose defendant roster is ~140 individually-named chargeback customers and whose recorded refiling basis reads "the same chargebacks-as-conspiracy theory and the same 18 U.S.C. 241 count that C040 lost, re-pled against a substantially identical ~140-name defendant roster"), and C013 (Lackawanna 2025-04276, filed 2025-06-06, later held by a court to raise claims identical to C040 and barred by res judicata). Both are recorded in this research as refilings of C040.
Watch at 02:54 — youtube.com ↗Repeated/escalatory filing¶
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 ↗Repeated/escalatory filing¶
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…
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."
Watch at 05:51 — youtube.com ↗Litigation motive / cost imposition¶
we might have to do is you know we might have to do personally serve every single one of these people in a separate lawsuit. Right now is easier for me to sue you know Shopify, the banks, the payment providers, every relevant party. It was…
The cost-imposing instrument named in the speaker's own words is **service of a lawsuit** and the resulting **attorney fees** — not publicity — which is the side of the 2026-09-03 line where `Cost imposition as stated motive` applies. He quantifies the effect ("over a million dollars in attorney fees") and sets it against his own effort ("a few hours of my time every day for a month"). The same quote names Shopify, the banks and the payment providers as the defendants of the action already on file, which is what supplies the case identification a Strong tier requires.
Watch at 13:56 — youtube.com ↗Legal escalation / contemplated proceeding¶
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.
Watch at 00:39 — youtube.com ↗Legal escalation / contemplated proceeding¶
And I actually just filmed a whole 15 minutes of me reading these people's names, their addresses, where they live, and the amount of money they stole from me. But that's not actually legal until I publish this into a court case. So, we…
This is the load-bearing passage of the slice. It establishes, in his own words and on a fixed date: 1. A filing already made — "we did file a court case in the federal district court with the first 70 people." 2. A filing announced but not yet made — "I'm going to publish another court case this week or next week." 3. The stated legal theory linking the two to publication — "that's not actually legal until I publish this into a court case", i.e. he understands the filing as what licenses the disclosure. 4. That the disclosure video was filmed (~15 min) and withheld from this upload, with the reason given as takedown risk for doxing.
Watch at 02:10 — youtube.com ↗Legal escalation / contemplated proceeding¶
and hey look all you guys that file chargebacks Google your name in about 2 months and you'll see the lawsuit so then when an employer or job prospect or or whatever when someone Googles your name they're going to see you in a lawsuit that…
the load-bearing quote in this video. It announces, on 2024-03-25, a not-yet-filed suit against the people who filed chargebacks, with a named escalation path (customers first, then the banks). C040 — Tufano v. Frankies Free Range Meat Conspirators, M.D. Pa. 3:24-cv-00846 — was filed 2024-05-22, 58 days later, naming 66 individuals; its research_notes claims summary describes exactly this theory (Shopify plus "more than one hundred other named defendants conspired to… interfere with his internet-based business", pled under 18 U.S.C. § 241). His own estimate — "in about 2 months" — is accurate to within about a week, which is unusual on this channel and is itself the reason the adjacency is worth recording rather than a coincidence of subject matter. Cost imposition as stated motive was considered and is deliberately NOT applied. The stated point of the filing here is reputational exposure ("when someone Googles your name they're going to see you in a lawsuit"), not the opponent's legal spend. The factor's published definition turns on legal spend, and the skill's leafleting rule is explicit that the factor follows the stated motive, not the tactic. Recording that decision so a later pass does not silently upgrade it. Strong was considered and declined: Threatened or prospective filing is not one of the three core factors, and no case or dispute is named on camera. Moderate is the ceiling the published rubric allows, however good the adjacency is.
Watch at 01:41 — youtube.com ↗Filing announcement / stated motive¶
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.
Watch at 02:26 — youtube.com ↗Filing announcement¶
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.
Watch / source — youtube.com ↗Filing announcement¶
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.
Watch at 00:31 — youtube.com ↗Filing announcement¶
This week, we filed a case in both the federal court and the state court. As if a judge is going to do the right thing, though. They're probably just going to dismiss the case and I'm going to be screwed as usual, losing money.
A self-reported parallel filing that the docket independently confirms. In the ten days before publication the tracker records exactly that pattern, twice over: C050 (M.D. Pa. 3:25-cv-00975) and C051 (M.D. Pa. 3:25-cv-00976) filed 2025-06-02, and C013 (Lackawanna 2025-04276, Tufano v. Shopify) and C014 (Lackawanna 2025-04277, Tufano v. TikTok) filed 2025-06-06. This is one of the rare cases where a self-report about filing conduct can be checked against the docket and matches. The second half alleges the outcome is predetermined ("as if a judge is going to do the right thing"), which is Judicial or forum bias alleged.
Watch at 00:47 — youtube.com ↗Named alongside
SHOPIFY (USA) Inc. Corporation Service Company is named in the same originating actions as 143 other tracked parties — these are mass filings rather than a small set of co-defendants. The largest of them is 3:25-cv-01227, which names 144 defendants. The full party list is on the case page.
Related dispute groups
- Shopify / business-platform conspiracy litigationSeven docket records naming Shopify entities and co-defendants, filed 2024-2026 in Pennsylvania, New York and federal court, including two mass filings.
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.