Party rosters and dispute groups repaired (September 6, 2026)

Five defects in the tracker's own party and dispute metadata were repaired. All five were fixed from records already on file: no new research was carried out and no new fact was added to the dataset.

Three were party rosters that omitted an entity the case's own claims summary names. C040, the multi-defendant conspiracy action, listed 66 individuals but not Shopify (USA) Inc., which its claims summary identifies as the lead defendant. C018, the Google action, listed Google, Alphabet and RealSelf but neither Dr. Mehryar Ray Taban nor his medical practice, both of which its claims summary names as defendants. And the OnlyFans operator was recorded as two separate entities because the punctuation of its name differed between filings - 'Fenix Internet, LLC' on C042 against 'Fenix Internet LLC' on C011, C051 and C052 - with nothing joining them. The two are now one canonical party, which takes it from two of this tracker's originating actions to three and changes what its party page shows.

Two were dispute-group assignments that disagreed with themselves. Where a state case is removed to federal court, this tracker keeps both dockets but counts them as one underlying action, so the two records cannot sit in different dispute groups. C013 carried no group at all while the federal docket it became, C054, sat in the Shopify group; C013 now sits there too. C014 and C053 are the same removed TikTok action and carried different groups - TikTok/ByteDance on one, the Taban surgery dispute on the other. Both now sit in the TikTok/ByteDance group, which is the dispute the complaint leads with; Dr. Taban is a co-defendant in it rather than its subject.

That last repair records a limit rather than removing one. The action genuinely belongs to two disputes, and a case can only be filed under one group here, so the grouping is a simplification wherever a complaint spans more than one dispute. Twenty-four of this tracker's originating actions still carry no dispute group at all.

Related cases

• 2025-03931 — Tufano v. Fenix Internet LLC
• 2025-04276 — Tufano v. Shopify
• 2025-04277 — Tufano v. TikTok
• 2025-05634 — Tufano v. Google
• 3:24-cv-00846 — Tufano v. Frankies Free Range Meat Conspirators
• 3:24-cv-01115 — Tufano v. Fenix Internet, LLC
• 3:25-cv-00976 — Tufano v. Fenix Internet LLC
• 3:25-cv-01165 — Tufano v. Fenix Internet LLC
• 3:25-cv-01175 — Tufano v. TikTok et al
• 3:25-cv-01227 — Tufano v. SHOPIFY (USA) Inc. Corporation Service Company et al

Note

Three case pages gained defendants that the cases' own filings name but this tracker had not recorded, and two cases were moved into the dispute group their companion docket already sat in. Nothing here comes from new research: every correction was made from records already published on this site. One party that had been counted as two companies with slightly different punctuation is now shown as one, so its page now covers three lawsuits rather than two.