Video statement archive promoted - batches 30-36 (September 3, 2026)

Batches 30-36 of the YouTube research archive took it from 537 files to 1,127, and none of that material had reached the dataset. This pass promoted every newly archived video carrying at least one researched quote: 279 youtube_lawsuit_videos rows (YT339-YT617), 850 video_statements rows (VS818-VS1676) and 582 video_case_links rows. Site totals go from 338 to 617 videos catalogued and from 817 to 1,667 researched statements, and the statement supercut goes from 44 to 69 clips, every one with a researched end time. Of the new statements, 25 are classified Strong, 633 Moderate and 192 Context.

510 archived videos carry no researched quote and were deliberately given no dataset row. That is the policy set in the August 30 pass, restated here because the count has grown: from batch 24 onward the archive records null results too - videos examined and found to contain nothing about the litigation. A null result is worth keeping in the archive, because it stops a later sweep re-examining the same video, and worth nothing in the dataset. The archive being larger than the dataset is by design and is not a backlog.

Tiers and factors were taken as the archive states them rather than re-derived, with three exceptions. Nine quotations were excluded on review as read-aloud passages that would attribute another person’s words to the speaker - customer emails, recited one-star reviews, a crowdfunding platform’s takedown notice, the opposing surgeon’s own email, TikTok’s appeal-denial determination, an unidentified viewer’s comment, recited bot-comment text and opposing counsel’s cease-and-desist. Twelve quotations whose archive file stated no tier were classified under the published rubric. And 36 quotations were moved off the core factor “Cost imposition as stated motive” onto a non-core factor, because the instrument they describe is a leafleting, picketing, t-shirt, review or social-media campaign rather than a filing - the reading applied in the August 28 and August 30 passes. Four statements recorded before this pass carried the same contradiction and were corrected with them, so the factor now means the same thing everywhere on the site. Where such a quotation also alleged forum bias in its own words, that factor was kept. A further 202 quotations were not promoted because each video is capped at four statements.

Related cases

• 2024-06106 — Tufano v. Miller
• 2024-06107 — Tufano v. Crispino
• 2025-00706 — Tufano v. Motorworld
• 2025-01448 — Tufano v. PPL Electric Utilities
• 2025-03175 — Tufano v. PPL
• 2025-03927 — Tufano v. Lackawanna County Assistance Office
• 2025-03928 — Tufano v. Better Business Bureau
• 2025-03929 — Tufano v. Fidelity Bank
• 2025-03930 — Tufano v. USDA
• 2025-03931 — Tufano v. Fenix Internet LLC
• 2025-03932 — Tufano v. Rational USA Inc
• 2025-04276 — Tufano v. Shopify
• 2025-04277 — Tufano v. TikTok
• 2025-05469 — Tufano v. All Ways Forwarding
• 2025-05632 — Tufano v. Alibaba
• 2025-05634 — Tufano v. Google
• 2025-05793 — Tufano v. Saladino
• 2025-06513 — Tufano v. Reddit Inc
• 2025-07808 — Fidelity Bank v. Free Range Meat LLC
• 2025-09608 — Tufano v. City of Scranton
• 2025-09609 — Tufano v. United Healthcare
• 2025-10242 — Tufano v. State Farm
• 2026-00063 — Tufano v. Fidelity Bank
• 2026-00216 — Tufano v. Meagher
• 2026-00262 — Tufano v. Google
• 2026-01160 — Tufano v. Based Bodyworks
• 2026-01525 — Tufano v. Better Life
• 3:23-cv-02106 — Tufano v. Levy et al
• 3:24-cv-00846 — Tufano v. Frankies Free Range Meat Conspirators
• 3:24-cv-01117 — Tufano v. Miller et al
• 3:24-cv-01116 — Tufano v. TikTok Inc.
• 3:24-cv-01114 — Tufano v. Reddit, Inc.
• 3:24-cv-01252 — Tufano v. Filatova
• 3:25-cv-00011 — Tufano v. Taban et al
• 3:25-cv-00316 — Tufano v. Shopify (USA) Inc. et al
• 3:25-cv-00262 — Tufano v. Saladino et al
• 3:25-cv-00260 — Tufano v. USDA et al
• 3:25-cv-00975 — Tufano v. SHOPIFY (USA) Inc. Corporation Service Company et al
• 3:25-cv-00976 — 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
• 3:25-cv-01400 — Tufano v. Saladino, MD et al
• 3:25-cv-01495 — Tufano v. Reddit, Inc.
• 3:25-cv-01558 — Tufano v. All-Ways Forwarding et al
• 3:25-cv-01574 — Tufano v. Google LLC et al
• 3:25-cv-01990 — Tufano v. USDA et al
• 3:26-cv-00397 — Tufano v. Burgess
• 3:26-cv-00447 — Tufano v. The State of California et al
• 3:26-cv-00835 — Tufano v. Based Bodyworks, LLC et al
• 3:26-cv-00840 — Tufano v. The State of California et al
• 3:26-cv-00939 — Tufano v. Better Life Foods Inc. et al
• 3:26-cv-01021 — Tufano v. Ice Cream for Bears LLC et al
• 3:26-cv-01016 — Tufano v. Eriksson et al
• 3:26-cv-01019 — Tufano v. Shopify (USA) Inc. et al
• 3:26-cv-01018 — Tufano v. United States Department of Agriculture
• 3:26-cv-01312 — Tufano v. Small Business Administration et al
• 3:26-cv-01667 — Tufano v. National Fire & Marine Insurance et al
• 3:26-cv-02135 — Tufano v. Crispino et al
• 3:26-cv-02133 — Tufano v. Hiraeth et al
• 3:26-cv-02132 — Tufano v. BBB
• 3:26-cv-02134 — Tufano v. Miller et al
• 3:26-cv-02238 — Tufano v. Meagher Insurance Agency et al
• EF2024-00001069 — Frank Tufano v. Wise Choice Cuts LLC et al
• 620245/2024 — Frank Tufano v. Jake Levy et al
• 651064/2025 — Frank Tufano v. Shopify Inc. et al
• 805063/2025E — Frank Tufano v. Fernando Gil et al
• 809139/2025 — Frank Tufano v. Northtown Honda
• 66298/2025 — Frank Tufano v. Social Security Administration et al
• 7:20-cv-09346 — Saladino, MD v. Frank Tufano
• 25SMCV00041 — Frank Tufano v. Mehryar Ray Taban, MD et al.
• 25SMCV05503 — Frank Tufano v. Mehryar Ray Taban, MD et al.
• 2025-07728 — Fidelity Bank v. FRM LLC

Note

A statement recorded here is a public statement, not a court finding. Its pattern-relevance tier and its filing-restriction factor are research classifications of what the speaker said - they record what was said, not that a court found it, and no court in this dataset has determined that anyone is a vexatious litigant. Start and end times for the quotations added in this pass come from the video’s own caption cues and are accurate to about one cue; each statement names the verification method used for it.