No, we had in the Kodak and in the Harman case members who stated to have stored the films properly. Moreover, not differently than they stored rollfilms the previous decades of working with rollfilm.
Also see my reference above to the issue of mottling as such being known to manufacturers since decades but not being reported by photographers.
Concerning your reference to a "recall of a defective" product:
The issue is basically a legal one. At least over here.
Recalls are done by manufacturers at least when safety/health issues are involved, in such cases authorities even can and did order recalls.
In other cases it is a grey zone.
In Germany we had cases were a court ordered cancelling of sales of a product, which included a recall. But this cases were more obvious violations than a product having a high or higher rate of not producing the intended effect. It would need a dedicated court case against Harman.
In the past we had a new member here who to own saying was affected badly as commercial photographer by cases of Kodak rollfilms showing print-transfer. As Kodak did know about these issues seemingly for a long time, but did neither warn buyers nor recalled these films, he wanted higher compensation than the usual substitution of bad films, but instead the cost of his labour and other expenses he had in commercially using those films.
He made a call at Photrio at other photographers who were affected to make a groups claim with him. For this he was banned in no time from Photrio.
So we did not learn how this interesting case turned out...
Last edited: