Frank Tufano lawsuits involving Shopify
2 originating actions · 2 docket records
Cases involving Shopify
Shopify is named in 2 de-duplicated originating actions in this dataset (2 docket records) across 2 courts filed between June 6, 2025 and July 29, 2026. 1 of the docket records carry a recorded outcome.
| Filed | Case | Court | Status / outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| July 29, 2026 | 3:26-cv-02137Tufano v. Carbondale Police Department et al | U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania | Pending; amended complaint filed Aug. 24, 2026 added seven financial institutions (eleven defendants in all); case reassigned to Magistrate Judge Phillip J. Caraballo Aug. 31, 2026; Carbondale Police Department appeared by counsel Sept. 2, 2026; no responsive pleading or dispositive ruling docketed |
| June 6, 2025 | 2025-04276Tufano v. Shopify | Lackawanna County | Removed to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania; same originating action as C054 |
What the filings allege
- 3:26-cv-02137A RICO action naming Carbondale police, Pennsylvania, the United States and Shopify, later amended to add seven financial institutions.
- 2025-04276Proceeding 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, tracked separately as C054) alleging 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
13 researched statements are linked to cases naming Shopify 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, 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¶
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¶
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¶
So, we did file a lawsuit against the local police department that is refusing to prosecute this. And I actually think I'm going to amend that lawsuit to add the FBI, all the different banks, and basically as many defendants as possible…
States an intention to amend a pending action to add further defendants, described as adding as many as possible.
Watch at 00:31 — 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 ↗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 ↗Claim / pleading description¶
It took me less than five minutes on Excel to prove that Shopify has stolen at least several hundred,000 from me. But they're so wealthy and powerful, the police aren't going to help me. The courts just throw out my case. And they do this…
States the claim, the amount ("at least several hundred thousand" — the caption's "several hundred,000" is a rendering artifact), and his own legal characterisation ("payment processor fraud… some type of bank fraud"). Note the hedge "some type of" — he does not identify a statute. Relevant that C054's recorded disposition rejected an attempt to use 18 U.S.C. §241 on the ground that it creates no civil cause of action; this is a different criminal-law framing of the same instinct.
Watch at 00:02 — youtube.com ↗Named alongside
Shopify is named in the same originating actions as 142 other tracked parties — these are mass filings rather than a small set of co-defendants. The largest of them is 3:26-cv-02137, which names 11 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.