Some have argued that because the journal paper does not prove the Society's mindset (i.e. bad intent) regarding the misquotes, that there is no tort of misrepresentation. Misrepresentation is an "intentional'" tort, and can also be a "negligence" type of a tort (i.e. constructive fraud, negligent misrepresentation). Yes, the defense of being "ignorant, stupid, etc." is a complete defense to one of the types of tort of misrepresentation, but the defense of "no intent" does not help in constructive fraud or negligent misrepresentation.
But since the inability of a lawyer to prove the Society's bad intent is your hang-up, I'll give you something to consider.
The blood booklet was originally published in the early 1990's. Do you think their printers stopped printing it in 1990, or 1995 or 2000 or 2005? I got my last copy in 2004, and it looked pretty new to me.
Now, let's just take the Priestley misquote. All the ex-JWs probably know (or should know by now) that that is not what Mr. Priestley concluded. In fact, some of us (I have) wrote the Society. Yet, it's never been retracted. The Society just doesn't "use" it anymore in their current literature. But, the Dec 2005 KM directs parents to use the blood booklet to train their children. The Society just re-ratified the blood booklet....including this bad Priestley quote!
Intent can be proven directly or indirectly. Directly is where a governing body member/writer/editor/elder admits the Society deliberately lied. Indirect evidence (aka circumstantial) evidence comes through a persons "pattern or practice" (a term I borrow from employment discrimination where you will never get a person to say on the stand.. "I hate [race] people."). "Pattern or practice" is just that, the person's pattern or practice. A few misquotes here and there is forgivable, human error. It's the pattern & practice of the misrepresentations that is damning for the Society. Ex-JW's have known FOR YEARS about the Priestley misquote, and have even wrote the Society about it. Did the Society officially "retract" their mistake? No. I have never seen any "retractions" of any errors to their followers. I "bet" the Society knew for a long time that it had problems in the blood booklet. I wonder whether Bethel ever received any inquiries from the secular writers themselves? I do not know, I never worked there. In any event, the Society "knows" it has problems in this blood booklet based on all of our inquiries. Yet, they continue to ratify it.
Here's an example. A car dealer sells you a nice Ford Mustang. It's a lemon, and you return it for your money back. He "thinks" there is nothing wrong with the vehicle, and he sells it to your neighbor by saying, "I just said the other day what a great car this was." She returns it to him, complaining it doesn't work. He sells it to your Aunt as he "thinks" both you and your neighbor are mistaken and says, "Why, I just said yesterday what a great car this was." Your Aunt returns it, and says it doesn't work...this "car" is repeatedly sold......day after day, publication after publication, misquote after misquote. You go to court. The judge is considering whether to put the case to trial (i.e. in front of the jury). Judge reads that salesman claims that he "thought" the car was great (secular/medical information was not a misrepresentation/Society beleived it was an accurate quote....) How would a good Plaintiff's attorney respond? "Pretext....he sold that car repeatedly after knowing there were errors (continued printing the booklet with the errors, offering it to the public, referred to it in current literature as good, no retractions, ever made) many times over the years despite being "on notice" that the car was a lemon (secular material contained in it was misleading). Judge, this needs to go to the jury. Get to the jury, get to the MONEY.
Law changes over time. Look at the changes that happened during the 20th century: equality, voting rights, tort law, tobacco litigation, labor protection, abortion (for the worse perhaps), women's rights, ability to sue one's parents, one's religion, one government, etc. Eduardo, the problem with getting "old" is that you get used to the status quo. Yes, every moral wrong is not a legal claim. But, when society/government as a whole thinks the moral wrong needs to become a legal wrong, the law changes. The wheels of justice grind slowly, but finely. The one thing about our world is that change is constant, and that the rate of change is increasing since the Internet. If this journal article were published 15 years ago, there is no way that this many JWs and ex-JWs would know about it. Accurate knowledge feeds change.