Mobile Fidelity Settlement Update

Misrepresentation in inducing a purchase is actionable. I would not have purchased any of my MoFi Step 1 albums--for which I paid a premium-- had I known there was a digital step. It matters not that some of them sound very good. It's a matter of  misrepresentation of provenance.

Now let's say you buy your wife a $100 replica of a $2,500 Louis Vuitton bag for Christmas and tell her it's real. She and her friends think it's real. Then one day she walks into a Louis Vuitton store and finds out that the only way the experts can tell the difference between the real and this particular fake is that there are 8 stitches inside of an interior pocket of the fake and 10 in the real version. She empties the bag and counts 8 stitches in hers.  Your defense--wifey couldn't tell the difference and none of wifey's friends will ever be able to tell the difference.

What are the odds that wifey says--"I'm good with that --I forgive you."

I have not had time to read the terms of the settlement other than a brief summary-- but I will certainly consider returns.

chrisoshea

I agree that it is not equivalent in the sense that it is not "on all fours". However, it was a clear misrepresentation and/or concealment that caused buyers to pay more for something that did not have the pure provenance (AAA) represented by the advertisements and the literature that came with the record. Under many State statutes, that action alone constitutes an actionable consumer fraud.