Judge : And did mofi inform you in any sales literature or any other promotion that you could expect future value to increase due to limited production run?
...
Judge : And what quantity did Mofi commit to limiting the production run to?
Now IANAL - but I don't think it matters in a court of law what a customer might infer from the statements of a supplier. At least in the UK, we are effectively talking about contract law (in consumer law the contract that is implicitly made as part of a transaction). And in a contract it only matters what is specifically stated. I accept that US Consumer law might be different.
I hope they don't settle out of court - it will be fascinating to see how this plays out in front of a judge.
I don't know if MoFi ever actually said "We only use analog, therefore the production runs are limited, therefore the value will go up." I am not sure if they needed to or not, for it to be relevant in court.
IANAL either but I think the standard for this sort of case in the US is whether customers would have changed their purchasing behavior if you hadn't said what you said.
They based a lot of purchases on the belief that it was all analog, when it wasn't.
So we could say there's likely some liability for MoFi there. The question is whether there are damages, and if so, how large.
On the sound quality front, the damages are obviously nothing. Nobody's listening experience was harmed and that's pretty easy to prove.
On the collectibility / rarity front, that is where I think the plaintiffs might get something. Their purchase was based on beliefs about rarity that were inherently tied to claims about the analog process. I am not sure if MoFi would have had to specifically claim anything about collectible value, to be found liable for the loss in value. I think they could be, but again not sure.
The plaintiffs on the other hand (every single class member) are a bunch of bloody idiots.
I don't know, some of those records really did go up in value, especially if you didn't play them.