Arthur claimed the following statements by LV supported his claims of "fraud":
- The prints are genuine Murakami artworks.
- The prints are original artworks.
- Murakami personally signed them.
- That the prints were made of the same material that LV had used to make handbags.
- That Murakami "had no personal involvment" in making the prints.
- That his signature was applied by someone else.
- That the prints were "Louis Vuitton merchandise" rather than Murakami artworks.
We're left, then, with a "gotcha" claim: that LV violated the technical requirements of the California Fine Prints Act. There really isn't any question that they did so. So Arthur is entitled to a refund; that's the remedy for a violation of the statute -- and Arthur could have had one at any point during this process. The only remaining issue would seem to be whether or not it's fair to charge LV -- not generally in the art gallery business -- with willfully violating what the LA Times called "an obscure chapter of the California Civil Code," such that Arthur (and, perhaps, anyone else who wants to trade in their print) is entitled to treble damages. So, at best, Arthur would be entitled to $18,000 per print instead of $6,000. It all seems so pointless to me.