Evidentiary treatment: This is a public statement by a party, indexed separately from court findings, party filings and this project’s research classifications. Quotations below are transcribed from the video’s own YouTube auto-generated captions and checked against playback at the cited timestamp; each links back to that exact moment so a reader can verify it. Auto-captions are machine-generated and mis-transcribe names and figures, so wording is preserved as transcribed rather than silently corrected. No transcript is reproduced here, and neither the video’s inclusion nor its relevance tier is a judicial finding.
Timestamped statements
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.
Claim / pleading description
Moderate pattern relevance00:02
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 through payment processor fraud. It's criminal. It's some type of bank fraud.
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.
This average of almost 4.1% is the true rate they've been charging me over the seven years I've been running my business. …the one I'm paying for, which is the highest level one, is $2,000 a month. And the way they got me and convinced me to pay $2,000 a month was, oh, we're going to go from 2.6% to 2.3%. …my payment processor percentage for the year where I got that more expensive membership was higher. It was 4.2%.
The only fully quantified allegation in this research's Shopify material — advertised 2.5–2.6% (2.3% promised on the top tier), actual ~4.1% average over seven years and 4.2% in the upgraded year, on a $2,000/month plan. The internal logic is checkable on its own
And ever since I emailed them, they actually changed the wording on this. So, was I like the first guy to call them out on it? It went from saying, you know, 2.6% transaction fee to from 2.6%. So they worded it differently to just include anything above it.
A specific and independently verifiable claim: that the published fee language changed from a flat "2.6% transaction fee" to "from 2.6%", and that it changed after his complaint. Verifiable against archived captures of Shopify's public pricing pages. Sharpens “Shopify is SCAMMING!”'s vaguer version of the same claim ("I can't even find that wording anywhere"). Recorded, not verified.
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.
A case link records a researched connection between the video and a docket record. It is not a finding that the video caused, or was caused by, any filing.
2025-04276 — Tufano v. ShopifyShopify dispute link · High · Title directly concerns Shopify; multiple Shopify cases share the same dispute grouping.