Washington Post article on MoFi vs. Fremer vs. Esposito

@clearthinker Is not withholding critical information is in fact misrepresentation to some degree, ultimately, courts will decide this issue.

My issue is with what are the harms done to individual purchasers of Mofi recordings? Did suddenly gained knowledge of digital step in mastering instantly change inherent quality of recording? No, the inherent qualities of recordings are absolutely the same as prior to this knowledge. Some may suddenly dislike the sound quality, total delusion based on anti digital bias. So there is no devaluation of these recordings based on sound quality. Then there is the question of market value of Mofi recordings, will these recordings drop in market value due to same bias?  What a shame for  Mofi to suffer based on anti digital bias, remember no devaluation based on sound quality.

I don't see any harms to individual purchasers of Mofi recordings. The misrepresentation should have some consequence, I'd suggest any financial settlement should accrue to entire mastering industry, not individuals, whether in class action or individual suit.

@clearthink - from what I've seen on those YouTube videos, you are correct; they haven't said 'all analog' since 2015 or something.

But I guess there is still an implication of such to some folks, and some people who paid a lot of money for what they mistakenly thought was 'all analog' are upset... I've got no opinion one way or the other. 

@sns      I think the legal position is quite clear.  If MoFi states an LP is 'all analogue' or 'AAA' and it is not, they are guilty of misrepresentation.  If they say nothing then there is no cause of action since a misrepresentation has to be an actual statement and does not comprehend a failure to state something whether or not the something is important, or even critical for some.

It is not a question of 'harm done' although the value of the harm suffered will be the main determinant of the amount of damages, apart from any punitive or exemplary element.

You suggest the knowledge that an LP previously thought to be all analogue is not doesn't amount to harm done because the material on the LP has not changed.  This may not be the case, since the opinion of many audiophiles on sound quality is based at least partly on a psychological reaction to knowledge of the components of the system and the recording that reproduces that sound.

I have many MoFi records that are stated to be AAA and they probably are since they were all purchased more than 10 years ago.  They vary quite a lot in SQ, probably because of the state of the master tapes when they were copied and the quality of the engineering.  Some are amongst the best LP records ever issued.  The best I have for SQ is 'Beatles for Sale' where the capture of the harsh edge on Lennon's voice on lead vocals puts him right in front of me.  Magical, and I haven't heard that on any digital version.

I stopped buying MoFi partly because I have the ones I want but also partly because I noticed the average SQ was becoming poorer   That will be because MoFi weren't taking the scrupulous care they did at the start.  Like quite a few things in audio, the glory days are still the glory days.

@clearthinker You may or may not be correct on misrepresentation issue, suppose it depends on how expectations of purchasers presented in court.

I did mention the psychological bias in my post. And yes, Mofi could lose based on that bias. Psychological harms may indeed be inflicted and compensated by courts, I don't believe that fair.

I quit purchasing modern vinyl perhaps five or six years ago, have much vinyl from 50's-70's, many very high sound quality, assume from original or early generation masters, some hot stampers.